October 17, 2017

So, Just What Exactly is Maine IFW Trying to Communicate?

First thing this morning I opened a link to a news story about how a major land owner in Maine, J.D. Irving, has been awarded a conservation award from Sustainable Forest Initiative. In gleaning the report, I read this: “JDI is supporting a large study of white-tailed deer through collaboration with six scientists as well as partners in government across New Brunswick and Maine. The deer research is using GPS tracking and extremely accurate forest inventory mapping to look at how deer are using different forest types during summer and winter months. This long-term study will monitor 140 deer and the habitats they choose over the next four years.”

Did I know this? Did you know this? Without knowing what exactly “supporting a large study” means, one might think that activity deserving of recognition might be worthy information to openly and eagerly share with the Maine people. Evidently it’s not.

In my work with this website, part of that includes a pretty close monitoring of the things that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) does….or doesn’t do. I am signed up to receive press notices, email notifications and Twitter Updates, although I suspect strongly that I don’t receive all that go out…for whatever the reasons.

It wasn’t until long after MDIFW had begun their deer study, that I and the rest of the public learned of it. It wasn’t until today, that I learned that J.D. Irving was “supporting a large study” with Maine and New Brunswick. If I, as someone who spends probably more time and effort than the majority of Maine residents keeping track of such things, don’t know these things, one has to suspect the general population isn’t either.

To date, MDIFW has been very stingy with any information about the study. Other than an occasional “release” to a “safe zone” propaganda outlet, the public would know nothing about the study or that it even existed.

However, this really doesn’t come as a surprise to me, as MDIFW does a very poor job of “communicating” with the public and and even worse job “communicating” with the license-buying sportsmen who pay their salaries. One example of terrible communicating is the department’s relentless tardiness in making available deer, bear, moose and turkey harvest reports and data. Seriously, I wonder why that is?

I also wonder why it is that a better effort can’t be made to share information about the ongoing studies of deer and moose in the state? Is it that the department really hasn’t the time or the money?

Following the revelation that J.D. Irving was awarded for “supporting a large study” of deer, I found out that the MDIFW has decided that the T.V. show, North Woods Law wasn’t embarrassing enough for them and the Governor’s office, so as part of what is being expressed as a campaign to “better communicate their mission with the general public,” they have teamed up with a professional actor to make “funny” videos.

The article I just finished reading says these videos are to share with the public and to “get our message out.” It appears to me that the message MDIFW wants to get out is void of deer and moose studies, or anything to do with hunting, trapping or fishing, even though, as I have repeatedly stated, it is these sportsmen who fund a great part of MDIFW’s budget…a budget that evidently allows them to hire a professional actor and spend their time recording “funny” videos for the “new” website and to publish on YouTube.

I also learned that: “The videos, produced by a professional ad agency [how much did this cost license holders?], are quick hits on three outdoorsy topics: hiking preparedness, birding and invasive species. (emboldening added)

If J.D. Irving’s “supporting a large study” is great enough that it actually made the study possible (and I don’t know what “supporting” means – maybe MDIFW should tell us?) maybe it would make a whole lot of sense to get J.D. Irving into one of those videos, if they are all that important to “getting the message out.” But maybe this is more telling than we realize. Perhaps the “message” is more about hiking, birding and invasive species, than deer, moose, trout or roughed grouse because the department has changed their focus to side dishes while disregarding the meat and potatoes.

But here I am again saying, this shouldn’t come as any surprise. Maine’s fish and game department – even fisheries and wildlife is an inaccurate title for the message it appears they want to send – is no different than all the rest of this country’s environmentalism-driven departments based on Scientism and the relationships of people and animals, far exceeding the relationships between person and person, as is obvious in our violent, angry and hate-filled society.

What I want to know is what plans the State of Maine, and the MDIFW, have in place to fund the future department of natural resources, animal rights and protectionism, when hunting, trapping, and fishing, along with the closing down of access to forests, effectively stopping ATV riding and snowmobiling, are eliminated in about 10 years?

The MDIFW evidently doesn’t have the time or resources to get game harvests reported online until the start of the following hunting seasons, or later, but they have time to make “funny” videos and resources to hire an ad agency, with a professional actor, to send out the message that hiking, birding, and invasive species are far more important than hunting, fishing and trapping.

I think the message is very clear and that MDIFW has been advertising that message loud and clear for several years now. MDIFW is NOT about getting the message out that hunting, trapping and fishing are the very backbone of this entire industry that has brought Maine and the rest of this nation to a point were responsible wildlife management has become the norm. Because we live in a post-normal age, all that has proven to work and has been successful and effective, must be destroyed and replaced with Romance Biology and VooDoo Scientism.

Maine, and the rest of the nation should say goodbye to our traditions of hunting, fishing and trapping and prepare for the “message” MDIFW and others are trying to get out.

From my perspective, it’s a real shame. I also feel bad for J.D. Irving that MDIFW cannot even take the time to acknowledge their support for their ongoing deer study. It is terrible public relations like this that next time MDIFW wants to have a study, they will be left on their own to figure it out.

Good work people!

As I see it, the choice now becomes mine. I can either hope that hunting and fishing are around until I drop dead, or I can become part of the “New Science” Scientism that is driving it all. Answer? I will NOT be signing up for “Keeper of the Maine Outdoors.”

Share

Buying Into Deer Management by Political Influence

Recently a Maine outdoor writer expressed his newly found knowledge he had acquired from reading a 10-year-old study about how deer can destroy a forest. What is most unfortunate for readers is that lacking in this report was the actual history of what took place during that time that prompted this politically biased report, placing pressure on the Pennsylvania Game Commission, forest management companies and private land owners to side with the Game Commission in carrying out their newly crafted deer management plan to radically butcher the existing deer herds throughout the state by up to 70%.

If for no other reason, one has to look at the very top of the study to see that the study was composed by, essentially, the forest industry. With knowledge and understanding, which so few people have these days, of the realities of “studies,” founded in Scientism and outcome-based, agenda-driven, “science,” one can easily discern that this study is the work of scientists, paid by the forest industry, to show a need to protect the forest, even at the expense of a deer herd.

There is, of course, more than one side to any story. The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission to try to get them to stop the destruction of the deer herd. However, many believed the number of deer in Pennsylvania to be much too large, in some places sporting numbers in excess of 60-70 deer per square mile. Growing up and hunting in Maine, where at times to find 1 deer in 60-70 square miles was a feat, it’s difficult to muster up support for those complaining that reducing deer populations to 15-20 deer per square mile would be a total destruction of the deer herd. There is a balance in there somewhere and it’s not based strictly on numbers but on a wide variety of items, often mostly driven by habitat and available feed on a continuous level.

The study in question is more of a political influence prompted by a very nasty set of events set in the mid-2000s. No study should be blindly accepted as the gospel without a deep forensic research into the background of the study and the whos and whys it is being done. Few would argue that too many of any animal within a defined area of the landscape can be destructive, in more ways than simply eating too much vegetation. But at the same time, a biased study, bought and paid for by the forest industry, has to be taken with a grain of salt and definitely within the context of the events at that moment in time. That is why the author should have spent a little more time in conducting his own research about the politics behind this study before extolling its “scientific” virtues as high value.

At the time this study was being compiled, those of us who followed the event, saw typical political nonsense loaded with contradictions. As an example, the forest industry, seemingly having convinced the Game Commission, that the only way the forest industry could survive was to have the deer densities slashed to around 15 deer per square mile. The same forest industry and Game Commission said that their new deer management plan would manage and maintain populations at that level, and yet in May of 2008, we read in the news that a member of the Pennsylvania Game Commission said that in one region, where deer densities had been reduced to 15-20 per square mile, the deer where healthy, the forest had “regenerated,” and that now the deer herd could be rebuilt. Rebuilt? Huh?

The author’s piece also revealed, what he called, “troubling,” a statement made by an author of the study in question. “It doesn’t matter what forest values you want to preserve or enhance – whether deer hunting, animal rights, timber, recreation, or ecological integrity – deer are having dramatic, negative effects on all the values that everyone holds dear.”

This is, of course, the root of all things bad when it comes to wildlife and game management. The real scientific method has gone absent. The study in question is a work of Scientism, in which those with authority present their opinions and perspectives as scientific evidence, understanding full well the power derived by such a position. When scientific decisions are disregarded and replaced with caving in to social and socio-political groups because deer, or any other animal, is having “dramatic, negative effects on all the values” that these, sometimes perverse groups “holds dear,” what hope is there for responsible game management? We can always expect to read more fake “studies” bought and paid for by political groups for political purposes.

Interesting that the reality is that none of these social groups would be in any position to be seeking the preservation of their perceived values as they might pertain to wildlife, if, over the past century, the hunters, trappers and fishermen had not been the financiers and willing participants in the execution of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. And yet, these social and political groups, who are now dominating the fish and wildlife agencies across the country, have never paid a lick of money or given any time toward real conservation of wildlife, are looking to destroy the one proven existence that has brought us to this point. Go figure.

Share

The Left, The Right, Reality and Zinke’s Proposed Forest Management Practices

From the Left all we ever hear is “We’re all gonna die!” From the Right all we ever hear is “It’s about time we’re gonna get it right!” The reality is nothing ever changes. But, don’t go look. The Left/Right paradigm is fake but exists only in echoed rhetoric and that is exactly what we are seeing when Trump’s new Secretary of the Interior announced changes in forest management practices.

The West is burning up, as one report this morning stated. Forest fires are popping up everywhere and as is usually the case, the Left blames is on Global Warming, and the Right blames it on poor forest management practices that result in the creation of tinder boxes.

Another example of the emotional reactions of brainwashed and blinded people is that immediately fear mongering began about the possibility that a tree might now be cut on Maine’s new and mostly unwanted national monument, Katahdin Woods and Waters.

The Right claims that their intent is “a healthy forest through active timber management,” with never a definition of the intent – and that is for a reason. The Left threatens a lawsuit if Zinke tries to cut down one tree in Katahdin Woods and Waters.

St. Clair, the original owner’s son, who is now the front man, without having a clue what Zinke meant by changing forest management practices, said, “We didn’t donate this land to be used as a commercial timbering operation.”

And this is business as usual here in the U.S. of A. While nothing changes in the Federal Government, except that which the ruling establishment wants to change and Congress just does as they are told, a part of what never changes, which is the reason the Federal Government gets away with what they do, is that the Left and Right continue their reactions and responses in the usual manner. In this case, the Left says we’re all gonna die and the Right says it’s about time to get it right. And then it’s on to the next round of fake announcements and none of these mouthy people ever go back to examine exactly what took place.

I think James Beers, former member of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says it quite well as to why nothing will change – except the emotional rhetoric that always accompanies false political announcement. The Left controls every aspect of government, as well as every non-governmental agency. Because of the infiltration and successful years of brainwashing and mind control throughout our indoctrination factories, even those, like Sec. Zinke, who, to the Left, appears to be a Rightist intent on destroying the forests, cannot help but do anything except what the Left desires – protect the forests and create the tinder boxes. Only politics calls for the political rhetoric to satisfy the voters of each perspective party.

Beers points out much the same when he says that the only way anything could change is through serious changes and/or repeals of certain draconian federal laws that prohibit change of any kind. And we know that will NEVER happen because it is not intended to happen. And so we keep on keeping on.

Beers writes in a recent email:

All of these above mentioned reasons for fuel accumulation and many, many other dwindling public land benefits that are slated for elimination by fiats, regulations and unjust law authorities granted federal bureaucrats in the past 40 to 50 years have a common taproot..  Past Administrations, their appointees and the bureaucrat “scientists” they have hired, all have this land closure and sustainable natural resource management elimination  as their ultimate goal.  Unless and until that “legal” (?) authorization for federal bureaucrats in federal laws like the ESA and Wilderness Act is either repealed or severely and specifically controlled in the specific federal laws authorizing such tyranny I don’t believe these somewhat generic and feel-good directives amount to anything.  The next Administration (look to all the Obama directives and letters, etc. on a wide variety of subjects) will simply issue their own directives (and probably in less than 9 months) and just drop the government truck into high gear and truck on down the road from where they left off on 19 January, 2017.

Because we cannot see, with each announced or “leaked” (that’s funny) change to anything, we will always keep hearing, we’re all gonna die, and it’s about time to get it right, but the truth is nothing ever changes, because “We the People” call all the shots and “we the people” have nothing to say about it – but we are trained to think we do.

Yep, somethings never change. Just more talk.

Share

More Elk Country Conserved, Opened to Public Access in Pennsylvania

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—An additional 766 acres of Pennsylvania elk habitat is now permanently protected and opened to public access thanks to efforts by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) and a generous donor.

“This would not have happened without landowners who care about Pennsylvania and both understand and appreciate the crucial wildlife values of this area,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer.

Located in Centre County, the project extends the western unit of State Game Lands 100 to the north along the West Branch of the Susquehanna River. By doing so, it expands that unit to 5,272 acres in size and improves access to it while expanding the overall size of the two State Game Lands 100 units to a combined 21,069 acres.

“This critical acquisition to the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s State Game Land system will not only enhance the agency’s ability to better manage the southern dispersal of its elk herd, but it will benefit all Pennsylvanians by adding an additional 766 acres,” said Bryan Burhans, PGC executive director. “We are grateful for the outstanding partnership between RMEF and the Game Commission.”

The property’s habitat includes oak and pine woodlands, meadows, grassland and key riparian habitat along 1.24 miles of the river. It is home to elk, whitetail deer, black bears, turkey, grouse and other bird and animal life.

“We are especially grateful for our long-standing partners at the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Their dedication and determination made this project possible,” added Henning.

Since 1991, RMEF and its partners completed 424 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Pennsylvania with a combined value of more than $24.9 million. These projects conserved or enhanced 26,874 acres of habitat and opened or secured public access to 9,312 acres.

Share

David Allen Will Be Leaving RMEF – Search Begins for Replacement

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation announced today the initiation of a search committee to find a replacement for David Allen, RMEF’s President and CEO, whose contract expires in August 2018.

‘RMEF has flourished under David’s leadership for the past ten years and there is no question that he is leaving RMEF much better than he found it,’ explained Philip Barrett, the Chair of RMEF’s Board of Directors, ‘and the end of David’s tenure next August provides an opportunity for the Board to transition to a new leader to secure the continued growth and success of RMEF.’

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, with over 222,000 members, 146 employees, $93,000,000 in assets, and programs and services that touch virtually every state in the country, is one of the largest and most robust conservation organizations in the United States. Mr. Barrett indicated that the vacancy is expected to draw interest from scores of exceptionally qualified individuals, and he noted that the committee has been formed now with the goal of enabling RMEF to conduct an exhaustive search. He added ‘RMEF will issue more information at an appropriate time concerning the search as it gets underway.’

Further information about RMEF and its mission, programs, and membership can be found online at www.rmef.org.

Share

Montana Elk Habitat Conserved, Opened to Public Access

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—A key wildlife landscape previously threatened by subdivision in northwest Montana is now permanently protected and in the public’s hands thanks to a collaborative effort between the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, a conservation-minded family and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

“This property lies within the popular Holland Lake recreational area of the scenic Swan Valley and there was some pressure to develop it,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “We appreciate the landowners for recognizing the wildlife values of the land and reaching out to us to help conserve it.”

The 640-acre parcel offers important summer and winter habitat for elk and whitetail deer. It is also provides key habitat for grizzly bears, Canada lynx and a vast array of other wildlife. Additionally, it contains riparian habitat via springs and a chain of wetland ponds that feed a tributary of Holland Creek.

Located about 65 miles north of Missoula, the property lies west of the Swan Mountain Range and is nestled between the Bob Marshall Wilderness to the east and Mission Mountain Wilderness to the west. It was previously an inholding within the Flathead National Forest but thanks to its conveyance, it now falls under the ownership umbrella of the USFS and belongs to all citizens.

”This acquisition will improve public land access, and help to preserve the recreation setting and valuable wildlife habitat in the popular Holland Lake area,” said Rich Kehr, Swan Lake district ranger.

The Holland Lake project is one of the first to receive 2017 funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Since 1985, RMEF and its partners completed 967 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Montana with a combined value of more than $160.2 million. These projects protected or enhanced 818,826 acres of habitat and opened or secured public access to 289,532 acres.

Share

RMEF Reaffirms Support of Public Lands

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—In light of continuing chatter and rhetoric aimed at privatizing federal public lands, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation continues to advocate its support for keeping public lands in the hands of America’s citizens.

“The 640 million acres of public land across the United States play a highly significant role in our wildlife system,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Without them, our management system, which is the most successful in the world, would crumble and the health of our wildlife populations would deteriorate.”

Allen publicly challenged Steve Hanke, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, who called on the government to sell public lands to private ownership in a recent issue of Forbes magazine.

“We cannot afford to play games here. What we need is a focused, pro-active land management approach for our public land assets in this country. RMEF will not waiver on supporting public lands but we are seeking better habitat management and the resources to make that happen,” said Allen.

Allen highlighted a recent elk migratory study by Dr. Arthur Middleton that shows how critical public lands are to the survival of elk in the Greater Yellowstone region.

“We have to manage our public lands with more of a focus on wildlife,” added Allen.

RMEF maintains its decades-long position that public lands must remain public and that such land needs to be managed for the benefit of wildlife and public access but especially for the overall health of forests, grassland and waterways.

Since 1984, RMEF and its partners completed nearly 11,000 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects with a combined value of more than $1 billion. These projects conserved or enhanced more than 7.1 million acres of wildlife habitat.

Share

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share

Here Comes Season Seven of RMEF Team Elk

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—Elk hunting adventures highlight the upcoming seventh season of RMEF Team Elk, presented by Cabela’s.

Team Elk remains one of the most unique hunting shows in all of outdoor television. It’s all elk, all the time,” said Steve Decker, RMEF vice president of Marketing. “It gives us the opportunity to highlight and promote the hunting culture and offer insight about the link between hunting and conservation.”

Season seven of RMEF Team Elk begins the week of June 26 and airs Sundays at 9:00 p.m., Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. and Fridays at 12:00 p.m. (all Mountain time) on the Outdoor Channel.

Hosted by Brandon Bates, the new episodes feature a first responder from Texas chasing elk in New Mexico, a NASCAR driver who exchanges life in the fast lane for a bow during the Montana rut, a father-teenage daughter adventure, several father-son outings, a woman who chases elk for her first time in Colorado and memorable hunts in Utah and other locations.

In addition to Cabela’s, other RMEF Team Elk sponsors include ALPS OutdoorZ, Bloodsport, Bog-Pod, Browning, Browning Ammunition, Buck Knives, Danner, Eberlestock, Mathews, MTN OPS, Peak/BlueDef, Sitka, Yamaha, YETI Coolers and Zeiss.

“We appreciate our conservation partners for their dedicated support of elk, elk country and the RMEF,” added Decker.

Share

Renowned Conservationist, RMEF Promote Relevance of Hunting

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—In an effort to promote a wider public conversation about the positive connections between hunting and wildlife conservation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation partnered with widely-respected conservationist and wildlife researcher Shane Mahoney to release a timely and evocative short film titled Relevance.

The video, which discusses the modern relevance of hunting traditions, especially in terms of conservation benefits, is the first product generated as part of a new and ongoing collaboration between RMEF and Mahoney.

“Shane is one of the world’s leading voices for conservation,” said Steve Decker, RMEF’s vice president of Marketing. “His message about hunting’s role in society showcases the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, certainly one of the most successful systems of wildlife recovery and management the world has ever seen. Shane’s message resonates not only among sportsmen and women, but also with those who do not hunt or fish but who share in the concern for wildlife’s future.”

The film’s narrative is borrowed from Mahoney’s keynote address, delivered at RMEF’s 2017 National Convention earlier this year in Nashville.

Mahoney, a long-time RMEF member, is the president and CEO of Conservation Visions, a global wildlife initiative focused on international conservation issues.

“Hunting is sometimes incorrectly viewed as a self-indulgent and wasteful anachronism in modern society,” says Mahoney. “However, we know, from an objective perspective, that sustainable use of wildlife can be an effective tool in support of conservation and human livelihoods; it is connected to the conservation of wild lands and waters, the environment, and our own food security.”

In 2015, Mahoney launched the Wild Harvest Initiative, a multi-year research and communication effort supported by RMEF and a diverse partnership of individuals, business interests, conservation NGOs and government agencies. The project’s mission is to provide a first-ever evaluation of the biomass and economic value of wild food harvested by recreational hunters and anglers in Canada and the United States and to assess the wider community of consumers who share in this harvest. By conjoining these insights with existing economic assessments of recreational hunting and angling, and by evaluating the costs and mechanisms that might be considered necessary to replace this wild food harvest, the Wild Harvest Initiative will help focus a wider question facing conservation policy institutions in both countries; namely, if hunting and angling were to cease tomorrow, what would be the consequences?

RMEF and Mahoney will work together on future projects as part of RMEF’s ongoing#HuntingIsConservation campaign, which has reached more than 30 million people since its launch in January 2016.

Share