July 16, 2019

Open Thread – September 7, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information not directly related to the content of articles published on this blog. Thank you.


Matanuska Glacier, Alaska

Photo by Al Remington


Don’t Mess Around With a Deranged Moose


If I Wanted To End Hunting, What Would I Do?

If I wanted to be the despot of the New World Order/One World Government, and one of the ways I believed imperative to control the people, those lovers of liberty, to achieve that goal, was to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing, how would I do it?

In it’s most simplistic form, I would have to take away the tools used to kill game or take away the game. But seriously, who is going to sit quietly by while one day I decide it’s time to destroy and ban ownership of guns, bows and arrows, traps, fishing poles, etc.? So far that hasn’t happened although there are efforts underway to slowly undermine the manufacture and possession of certain of these tools. But just keep believing it’s “reasonable” restrictions. “Nothing to see here! Move on, please!”

And would we as a people revolt if, one day, we woke up and were told all game species are now protected and cannot be hunted, trapped or fished? Probably not as well, but what if it was all just a slow death? Would we even take notice?

I’m not sure how we can put a timeline together as to when it started but in my judgement the birth of environmentalism in the 1970s was the onset of the end of our hunting, trapping and fishing culture and heritage. No, we didn’t wake up one morning and discover we couldn’t hunt and fish. A slow erosion has forever stripped away the identity of our hunting and fishing culture and heritage and replaced it with a socialistic architecture; the result of a war waged at winning the public’s trust first, then a systematic, unnoticeable (by most), dismantling of not only our culture and heritage, but the science that crafted the foundation of a wildlife management scheme of which was the envy of the world.

If it isn’t enough that most of us slept through the 70s, 80s, 90s and the early 2000s, we not only remain asleep but some that have woken up enough to get a first cup of coffee into them, don’t realize they are still being duped and at the same time thinking they have put a stop to, or at least slowed down, the onslaught against hunting and fishing and trapping. Quick! Drink another cup of coffee or six.

I have a case in point, which I will be forthright in saying it is my opinion based on years of reading, research, discovery and history. I have always said a person has met his match when he walks into, let’s say someone’s office, to demand their way and walks out with a big smile on his face believing he has won his demand, not knowing he was further taken advantage of. Being taken advantage of comes from ignorance and naivete.

In the Northern Rocky Mountains region, the citizens there were lied to and miserably misrepresented by government as to the realities of gray wolf reintroduction. Some have called the actions by the United States Government, staff and certain non governmental agencies and staff, criminal in nature and in need of legal prosecution.

Regardless, gray wolves were dumped onto the landscape and the result, in my opinion, has been a disaster; not in the sense that wolves didn’t make a biological recovery, but for whatever the reasons one chooses to point a finger at, it has turned into a social nightmare and a biological imbalance of wildlife species in those areas where wolves have been allowed to run rampant. However, the perpetrators of the wolf introduction aren’t suddenly going to roll over and play dead.

There’s a better way for them. In the original plans, such as they were, there was talk that one day there might be enough wolves in the forest to offer a hunting season on them. By doing such, even though many of the useful idiots who don’t understand the despot’s plan, the varmint dog is elevated to an equal social icon as other “big game” animals, i.e. elk, deer, moose, big horn sheep, grizzlies, etc. Now that the species is elevated to something it should never have been allowed to, more protections are put on the creature and value that is contemptible.

That one day came around and to appease the “sportsmen”, a hunting, and yes, even a trapping season in some places, was offered; a complete placation to the sportsmen. This should have been seen as an insult, a mockery of the tried and esteemed “model” of game management, and instead was hailed by some sportsmen as a victory.

History has proven that you can’t manage the gray wolf like you do other game animals. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation utilizes the hunting of game species to control populations and a controlling of predators to protect the game species; the key word being “control”. If wolves and other large predators aren’t controlled in order to produce consumptive use, then there will result in no game left to hunt. Oh wait! Isn’t that my despotic plan?

Nearly four years ago I warned that the plans being formulated by fish and game institutions would have no effect on the wolf populations. Around about that same time, I did a five-part series on the historic difficulties by civilizations in many countries, including the United States, to control wolves.

The short of it is, having limited tool and resource hunting and trapping seasons is only going to make the sportsmen think they have gotten their way, when in fact their opportunities will slowly diminish to nothing. Is there a smile on your face? Is that satisfactory to you?

As I write, Idaho and Montana have had wolf hunting seasons. Wyoming and Wisconsin are planning them this fall, although Wyoming’s may not happen because of lawsuits (what else is new?).

As the evil despot that I am, I believe I have mitigated the angst of many of the sportsmen. This will allow me more time to do things like Idaho is doing; lining up environmentalists, animal rights groups, predator protectors, etc. who will funnel the money I channel to them – through worldwide agencies all opposed to consumptive wildlife use, land ownership, liberty and rights – to fund wildlife departments nationwide that have now all been brainwashed into believing my hogwash I injected into the education institutions many years before. My plan is in place, so deeply rooted you’ll never change it. You might slow it down here and there, so go back to sleep.

Not that I think there’s a lot that can be done anymore to stop this giant steamroller, but at least don’t be shot with a black bag over your head. Knowing who killed your culture and heritage must have some kind of redeeming value. Doesn’t it? Snore!


RMEF Celebrates 75th Anniversary of Pittman-Robertson Act

*Editor’s Note* From this press release, it is clear that the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports the wrong direction and abuse that has transpired against the Pittman-Robertson Act. Never was this excise tax intended to be spent on “other wild game and non-game species across the board”. Nor was it intended strictly to preserve lands and habitat.

Perhaps if the RMEF backed off on the amount of money they spend buying up lands and conservation easements and taking private land from the tax rolls and putting that money and energy into returning Pittman-Robertson to what it was intended, they wouldn’t need to be asking for so much money so much of the time. If you don’t see that environmentalists have hijacked the Pittman-Robertson excise tax then you are part of the problem.

MISSOULA, Mont.? – In light of the 75th anniversary of the Pittman-Robertson Act, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation honors hunters and the vital role they play in funding wildlife management and conservation.

?”Hunting is conservation! There is no greater proof of that than hunters who successfully lobbied government so many years ago to tax themselves? all for the benefit of wildlife,?” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “?That continuing and ever-increasing funding remains the lion?s share for today?s conservation efforts, too.”?

Nevada Senator Key Pittman and Virginia Congressman Absalom Willis Robertson sponsored the legislation. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law on Sept. 2, 1937.

The Act imposed an 11 percent tax on guns and ammunition to restore and protect wildlife habitat. Prior to the law, hunting pressure and habitat degradation pushed bison, deer, elk, pronghorn, wild turkey, wood ducks and other species to the brink of extinction.

?Philosopher George Santayana famously stated, ?”Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”? “Hunters learned and they acted,”? added Allen. ?”The great thing is growing numbers of dedicated hunters today mean even more funding for elk, other wild game and non-game species across the board.?”

The Act raises more than $280 million a year for wildlife conservation, and raised more than $2 billion since its inception. The excise tax goes to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the states based on a formula that takes into account the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters.

Revenue from state licenses and fees adds up to about $275 million a year, which goes exclusively to state fish and game departments for conservation purposes.

Hunters are the fuel behind RMEF and its 6 million-plus acres of habitat conservation. More than 95 percent of RMEF 180,000 members are passionate hunters.


Just How Many Black Bears Does Connecticut Have Anyway?

Yesterday I reported in “Connecticut: Counting and Killing Bears” that the “official” bear count in Connecticut was about 500 bears. Maybe Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection should learn how to measure the number of bears in the same fashion as the old timer learned how to convey the size of the trout he caught. When asked how big a particular fish was being told about in a story, the old timer fisherman would reply, “I wouldn’t say it was bigger than 14 inches.”

Maybe if Connecticut reported that the state had no more than 5,000 they would be better off. Then again, one has to honestly question with a department of energy and environmental protection is rightfully equipped to know and understand the population of a flock of bears or a herd of turtles.

After publishing my article yesterday, a reader and part time contributor to this blog, Richard Paradis, emailed me a link to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection website where they have tracked and recorded by town bear sightings/encounters reported by residents from September 7, 2011 until August 30, 2012.

This chart shows 2,915 reports of bear sightings all across the state. As was pointed out by Mr. Paradis, “If there are 500 bears [in Connecticut] then each bear has been sighted an average of 6 times.” It might be safe to say, I don’t see my next door neighbor that often.

While not out of the realm of possibilities that there exists only 500 bears in Connecticut, this many sightings are very much possible providing that the bears are out hitch hiking, visiting the local restaurants, standing in unemployment lines and chartering buses to Foxwoods Casino.

IF the counting and estimating process continues, I will be curious to see what kind of a number they come up with and how much confidence to put into such an estimate.


Gunsight Mountain, Alaska

Photo by Al Remington


Open Thread – September 5, 2012

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


One PPH Reader: Cut Down More Trees to Increase Deer Population

For what it’s worth, over the years residents of Maine have been told that the reasons there is such a poor deer herd in many parts of the state are because (and in no particular order): Severe winters, loss of habitat, destruction and loss of deer wintering areas, poaching and perhaps an occasional depredation (said with tongue nicely inserted into depth of right cheek) by a bear, coyote/wolf, bobcat, lynx and/or mountain lion. Never, in my recollection, has anyone suggested cutting down more trees to increase the number of deer…..directly.

I should, however, point out that there is legitimate debate as to whether proper logging practices – proper in the sense of better wildlife management – would provide better feed. I don’t believe that lack of feed is a problem. At this point spending time and effort to provide more feed for deer would be akin to me setting up feed stations all across Maine to feed the elusive down-hill-side-badger.

As silly as all this sounds, a person actually did write the Portland Press Herald and suggested, “it’s time to “cut” a few trees, thus increasing feed opportunities” and further suggested that, “Large forest growth contributes to the lack of deer.”

Well, not really but…..well, really? I think if the argument was that Maine has a sufficient population of deer but lack of feed, then perhaps cutting more trees would be in order. But that isn’t the problem. The problem is there aren’t any deer to begin with. We must address that problem first, and we are not in any serious way.

And on a related note, it has been brought to our attention nearly one year ago, that those hundreds of thousands of acres of forests, clear cut because of the spruce budworm, will be mature within the next 15 years. Then what?


Connecticut: Counting and Killing Bears

While Connecticut biology students are stringing barbed wire and stealing bear hair samples, aimed at examining DNA in hopes of making a better guess at how many bears there really are in Connecticut, other officials are killing nuisance bears.

The Connecticut black bear brass claim there’s 500 bears in the Constitution State. That guess is probably as good as me guessing the average number of whiskers on the face of a werewolf at midnight at the height of the full moon in foggy London town.

In the meantime, residents are having to deal with what appears to be an ever increasing number of encounters with bears. In Madison, one guy films a bear in his back yard from an open window in the house. The bear charges the man who quickly shuts the window. In the video below, note the matching set of earrings the bear is wearing. And, oh yeah, the bear was eventually killed.

View more videos at: http://nbcconnecticut.com.