May 22, 2017

National Park Service Seeks Public Comment on an Initial Bison Herd Reduction Environmental Assessment for Grand Canyon National Park

Press Release from National Park Service:

Grand Canyon, Ariz. – The National Park Service (NPS) has announced that the Initial Bison Herd Reduction Environmental Assessment (EA), which evaluates management actions related to bison on Grand Canyon’s North Rim, is available for public review and comment. The EA was prepared in collaboration with cooperating agencies — the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the InterTribal Buffalo Council.

The bison on the park’s North Rim descended from animals brought to northern Arizona in 1906. In the 1990s the bison herd, which the Arizona Game and Fish Department has managed in the House Rock Wildlife Area on the Kaibab National Forest since 1929, began venturing onto the North Rim of the park.  Most of the bison herd now spends a majority of its time inside the park.

Biologists estimate that since the early 1990s the herd has grown from approximately 100 bison to between 400 to 600 bison that currently roam the Kaibab Plateau. Estimates also show that this bison herd could grow to nearly 800 bison in the next three years and as large as 1200 to 1500 animals within ten years if further management actions are not taken.

Given the current bison distribution, abundance, and density and the expected growth of this herd, the NPS is concerned about increased impacts on park resources, such as water, vegetation, soils, and archaeological sites; and on values such as visitor experience and wilderness character.

The purpose of the actions evaluated in this EA are to (1) quickly reduce bison population density in collaboration with other agencies with jurisdiction for bison management on the Kaibab Plateau, and (2) protect Grand Canyon National Park resources and values from the impacts of a steadily growing bison population.

Through the preferred alternative, the NPS, working together with cooperating agencies and partners, would reduce the bison herd to fewer than 200 animals using lethal culling with skilled volunteers and non-lethal capture and removal. Considering the size of the current bison population, the proposed herd reduction could be achievable over a period of three to five years and is consistent with recommendations for a herd size that would reduce or prevent impacts on park resources.

The NPS seeks the public’s thoughtful review and comments during the 30-day comment period, which concludes on June 7, 2017. The EA is available on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment (PEPC) website at: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/grca_bison.

The NPS will host three in-person open house meetings during the comment period, as follows:

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

DoubleTree by Hilton

1175 West Route 66

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

6 pm to 8 pm MST (Arizona)

 

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Ben Avery Facility–Activities Center

4044 W. Black Canyon Blvd

Phoenix, AZ 85086

5 pm to 7 pm MST (Arizona)

 

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Holiday Inn Express and Hotel

217 South 100 East

Kanab, UT 84747

6 pm to 8 pm MDT (Utah); 5 pm to 7 pm MST (Arizona)

 

The NPS also plans to hold one informational web-based meeting on Tuesday, May 30, 2017 from 5 pm to 6 pm MST (Arizona). Registration for the web-based meeting and more information about the open house can be found at http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/grca_bison.

 

Interested parties can submit comments either electronically on the PEPC website (the preferred method of receiving comments); via U.S. Postal Service at Grand Canyon National Park, PO Box 129, Attn: Bison Management Plan EA, Grand Canyon, AZ 86023; or at one of the in-person public meetings. Public comments will not be accepted during the web-based meeting; participants will be directed to the PEPC website to enter comments.

 

 

 

-NPS-

Office of Communications

Grand Canyon National Park

Share

Dear Montana Wolf Hunter: Do You Have a Strong Emotional Bond With Wolves?

Think about this one…if you are at all capable. It appears the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department sent out a wolf management survey to some of the residents. What’s not clear to me is exactly who the survey was mailed to. I wonder because the letter (shown below) that accompanied the survey, is addressed this way: “Dear Resident Wolf Hunter.” If the survey was only sent to Montana resident wolf hunters, then the question needs to be asked why did the survey include Questions 12 and 25? (Shown below)

Question 12 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think “the rights of wolves” are more important than the interests of humans. Doesn’t that tell us a lot of where the perspective on wildlife and animals is and where it is going? I need to ask, why you would ask a Montana Resident Wolf Hunter, whose goal, I am to assume, is to kill a wolf….or five, would be interested in “the rights of wolves” or other socially retarded, emotional, clap-trap, insane issues as wolf rights and emotional bonds, among others?

But it gets worse. Question 25 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think wolves should have the same rights as people, hunting is disrespectful to animals, have a “strong emotional bond,” and the list is nauseating to read. Only a mentally ill quack would think up such questions.

Yesterday in a radio interview I talked of how our society has become so perverse toward animals, placing them at an existence level higher than man, that it was an abomination unto Yehwah.

The idea that any managers of wildlife would ask such insane and perverse questions says a lot about the status of our mentally deranged society and drives home the reality that hunting, trapping and fishing are rapidly headed toward its end. Don’t kid yourself. There is no hope.

In my opinion, this survey was either sent to a random sampling of Montana residents, disguised as a survey for Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, whose objective is to be able to publish results of this survey that contain mostly or all non hunting residents to manipulate public opinion. Or, they are sending this survey only to Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, and as a reflection of the positions, policies and values of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, are attempting to continue the brainwashing of as many hunters as they can to effect the gradual, perverse changes that they intend for all the rest of us.

Psalm 36: Wickedness saith to the wicked man,even in mine heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, while his iniquity is found worthy to be hated.

The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to understand and to do good.

He imagineth mischief upon his bed: he setteth himself upon a way, that is not good, and doth not abhor evil.

Thy mercy, O Lord, reacheth unto the heavens, and thy faithfulness unto the clouds.

Thy righteousness is like the mighty mountains: thy judgments are like a great deep: thou Lord, dost save man and beast.

How excellent is thy mercy, O God! therefore the children of men trust under the shadow of thy wings.

They shall be satisfied with the fatness of thine house, and thou shalt give them drink out of the river of thy pleasures.

For with thee is the well of life, and in thy light shall we see light.

10 Extend thy loving-kindness unto them that know thee, and thy righteousness unto them that are upright in heart.

11 Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked men move me.

12 There they are fallen that work iniquity: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise.

Share

Controlling Coyotes Saves Deer

Controlling politicians may save more deer than killing coyotes.

From Outdoors in Maine:

“We can whine and moan that the state needs to do this and that, but it may never happen soon enough due to political reasons,” he said. “We as sportsmen need to keep taking it upon ourselves to do everything we can. Why? We are the effective ones! Keep up the great work.”

Share

Open Thread – 15th Day, 5th Month, 2017

FAKE: GLOBAL HACKING, Global Warming, etc.

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

I’ll be a Radio Guest on Sunday

I will be a guest on the Shake, Rattle and Troll radio show Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. EST on KFNX, 1100 am out of Phoenix, Arizona. You can tune in Online by clicking on this link.

We will be discussing wolves and promoting my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand.” And if things go as they usually do, other topics of interest will be cover. Lots of fun!

Share

Maine Gov. “Invasive Species” Portal Evidently Intended to Keep Environmentalists and Animal Righters Happy

The State of Maine has evidently developed, or is developing, a website portal geared at addressing concerns over invasive species. It appears there is concern about invasive fish and marine wildlife, along with invasive plants, diseases and parasites that might effect plants including agricultural crops, but there appears to be something missing from this portal. Where is the section about invasive animals? Surely there are invasive animals that pose just as a big a threat to Maine’s ecosystems than odd fish and the spreading of some plants.

If I were to pick just one invasive wild animal that is very destructive to Maine, I would have to pick the coyote. It’s easy for most, including employees at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), to address only the obvious about coyotes, i.e. killing deer, lynx, livestock, turkeys, grouse, etc. but it is exceptionally inconvenient to discuss the more than 30 diseases and parasites the mixed breed canine spreads throughout the state.

We already know, and the MDIFW has done a superb job of covering up the disease, that moose are now victims of what the department prefers to call “lungworm.” Lungworm is a common man’s term for Hytadid disease from the parasite Echinococcus granulosus. The diseases cause the growth of tumors in the lungs, liver, heart, and other places hindering the moose from having the best physical conditioning to escape predator danger. Because moose are known to be infected, it’s only a matter of time before deer will become so and any and all other wildlife ungulates and livestock, including sheep, cows, and pigs.

The Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) parasite is carried and spread by coyotes, along with as many, if not more, than thirty other diseases. Oh, and did I mention that E.g. can be deadly to humans?

As populations of coyotes persist and grow across Maine, livestock, pets, and humans will be at risk from these diseases.

But we mustn’t talk about this because we are talking about an animal that some mentally ill people prefer to protect and perpetuate than insure the health of our people and the health and proper management of our wildlife and ecosystems in general.

However, consider the following information. It was brought to my attention a short time ago when a colleague asked how any species can be invasive. The answer was more or less simple. The species must come from outside of the Firmament, i.e. the earth, and the “waters above” and the “waters below.”

Man evidently has made the decision that starting at some random point in history, species that existed and where they were found would be how things must be kept. Odd and ironic that environmentalists love their wolves and other wild canines. They love to tell people how that millions of years ago “it is believed” that wolves/coyotes came to North America over that infamous “ice bright” somewhere around the Bering Straits. Beginning at that time, and moving forward, evidently everything else might be an invasive species. It would seem to me that if the wolf/coyote migrated here over an “ice bridge” during a period of “global cooling” (was that NOT a natural event?) then it was either an invasive species or there are no such things as invasive species.

Evidently an invasive species is some kind of plant or animal life that upsets the environmental narrative. If it’s on this “planet” how can it be invasive? And who left which man to be in charge of deciding at what point of time in history a line is drawn and any movement of plant or animal after that point is considered invasive and therefore not wanted. It would appear that using this same kind of thinking, or lack there of, that a strong argument could be made that the United States of America corporation is made up almost entirely by “invasive species” of humans.

The hypocrisy in all this is that the environmentalists want to control everything about our environment and ecosystems, but only to the point of which they want it. All else is wrong. Management of wildlife as a resource for food and products (hunting, fishing and trapping) evidently is unacceptable manipulation but playing gODs and deciding what stays and what goes is alright.

Doesn’t make much sense at all, but H.L. Menken, reminded us, that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Share

Open Thread – 13th Day, 5th Month, 2017

HACKED!

Because of a Windows “Glitch” (wink, wink) The Beast Demands You Need More “Security”

(I bet there’s at least “33” countries that have been “HACKED!” Bwahahahahahahaha)

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

Maine House Fearful of Lawsuits Passes Bill to Allow “Religious” People to Forego Wearing Blaze Orange

The Maine House has passed, 120-27, LD 426 that provides anyone who cannot wear bright colored clothing while firearms hunting for deer, to discard it and instead wear some kind of red clothing – some kind because what that red is has not been determined.

Many other things in the bill, whose sponsor was quoted as saying, “I feel that failure to do so will almost certainly lead to a legal confrontation between the state of Maine and this group of Amish people”…, were not spelled out and leaves wide open many issues, some of which could be potentially serious.

If the Senate passes and the Governor signs this bill, it appears anyone can hunt deer with firearms and forego wearing blaze orange and replace it with red. If questioned simply tell the warden it’s for religious reasons. Who is going to prove one way or another. Does this bill clearly point out that you have to be an active member of a recognized “religious” order or sect to qualify? And now wouldn’t that open up a can of worms!

And what about liability. Yes, Maine law states that a hunter is responsible to know his target before shooting. But what if there is an accident anyway. Is the shooter exempt from liability because, unlike all other hunters, a “religious” hunter isn’t wearing the required hunter orange?

So, what does this say about the years of process and development of Maine hunter safety rules. Do we toss those out the window because of a “religious” belief? If blaze orange is a public safety issue then it is a public safety issue…period.

If Maine is passing this bill, partly due to the fear of lawsuits brought on by the Amish, then is it that they have no fear of a lawsuit brought on by everyone else who feels reverse discrimination?

But what I find of interest, and I suppose a point that nobody wants to speak of (out of fear of a lawsuit for bigotry and/or religious persecution), is that the Amish state that their religion forbids them to wear bright-colored clothing because it draws attention unto them. Really? So is it the bright clothing that is the issue or the fact that attention is being brought on them somehow?

If it’s about the attention, then one could argue that they certainly draw more attention on themselves simply by living a lifestyle that causes people to stop and stare, and sometimes worse than that. And if that isn’t enough, I know when I am out in the woods hunting, and wearing blaze orange because it is REQUIRED by law (and now I will be treated differently) there’s nobody around in the woods that would give a damn what I’m wearing.

In short, none of this makes much sense at all. It just all sounds like a bunch of crap, rooted in the fear of some sort of lawsuit, to go overboard with “religious” tolerance. Which brings me to another point. If it’s the attention they are trying to avoid, what kind of attention have they already brought on themselves by pushing this law and what more attention, probably national, would they bring on themselves if they filed a lawsuit?

I call BS!

Personally I don’t care. I really don’t. Under certain circumstances I would like to be able to hunt without blaze orange. Now, I guess I can because I just found “religion.”

 

Share

Demand Censorship to Promote Animal Idealism

The linked-to article below is but one more example of how the progressives on the left are such ignorant hypocrites and the totalitarians they really are. The author takes issue with an article published in the Portland Press Herald that addressed the fact (yes it is a fact, studied by and published by read search scientists) that the wild canines living in Maine are a breed mixture of coyote, wolf and domestic dog. This ad mixture has resulted in a larger canine species carrying with in some wolf traits as well as those of the domestic dogs they may have bred with. This is nothing more than a biological fact of dog breeding.

All this evidently stirs up the demands by leftists to censor the journalist who wrote the story because the article did not 100% support the nonsense the coyote adorers want to force on to the public. Only their “truth” matters.

As an example of leftist demonization of anyone with a contrary thought, the author takes the high road and claims the only one in existence that holds the keys to enlightenment. Odd that the same author chose to take quotes from old retired biologists, who were trained in the ridiculous theories about wild canines, i.e. at a time when theories swarmed about trophic cascades and the “balance of nature,” as well as the myth of litter size doubling when coyotes are killed. All of these theories have since that time been scientifically proven as false, at least to some degree, and yet it is still convenient to cherry pick what fits a narrative.

Another tactic is the use of words to present members of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and anyone else who might support control of predators, as barbaric people and ignorant of the science of predator prey relationships and the behavior of wild canines. I might suggest that anyone who would rely on old, rejected science and ancient quotes about how coyotes in Maine are no threat to the deer herd, when coyotes numbered less than 5,000 (today closer to 20,000) are the ones who are ignorant of facts.

The truth in all of this is we have a group(s) that perceives any animal at or above the same plane of existence as man and they loathe any kind of animal killing. These are the same people who generally promote the murder of over one million unborn babies a year and yet go off the deep end when reasonable people try to find a respectable balance within the animal resources we have that are a benefit to all, not just those who worship animals.

I would suggest that if this author is going to attempt to scientifically prove that controlling and managing wildlife is wrong and barbaric….oh, wait. There is no science to prove that. More than likely these people are still doing daily readings from Farley Mowat.

“Portland Press Herald readers and subscribers want and expect high quality journalism on wildlife, wildlife policy matters, and the role wild animals play in healthy, bio-diverse ecosystems.

It is past time to move these important subjects out of the realm of the sports department to give them the serious attention and treatment they deserve.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Cantwell, Western Democratic Senators Urge Feds to Lift Sudden Suspension of Public Land Advisory Groups

Press Release from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

WASHINGTON, D.C — Today, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and a coalition of western Democratic senators today urged the Interior Department to lift its sudden suspension of long-standing local committees and advisory boards that provide essential community input on public land management.

Their letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke follows reports that the Department of the Interior (DOI) postponed all meetings for public resource advisory councils and committees (RACs) until September. The letter was led by Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and signed by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.).

“We are very concerned about this news and would like an answer as to why the RAC meetings were postponed during the BLM’s review of all advisory boards and committees,” the senators wrote. “It is critical that local voices, including RACs, have the opportunity to provide input and take part in the process at all times, not just when those local voices align with the Administration or a large special interest.”

The advisory groups are designed to get diverse community input on often-contentious public land management issues. These advisory groups were included both in Wyden’s original legislation creating Secure Rural Schools support for counties in Oregon and nationwide; and the Interior Department’s own rules dating back to 1995.

Those advisory groups have long helped to balance questions of environmental and economic impacts by informing decisions on issues such as recreation, land use planning, grazing, oil and gas exploration, and wildfire management.

“Balancing these interests is challenging, which is why RACs were created,” the lawmakers wrote. “By working through difficult land management issues and getting local input from the beginning, projects are more likely to succeed. Without this tool, many good land management projects would never be completed.”

A copy of the entire letter is here.

Share