August 25, 2019

Recruiting Hunters and Fighting Antis: It’s Just a Little Too Late

Reading two articles this morning, I am reminded of the old saying, “A day late and dollar short.”

The first article is in response to the latest U.S.F.W.S.’s survey of hunting and fishing which shows a decline in the number of hunting licenses sold. The article goes on to tell of what we can do to reverse that trend…ha, ha.

Recruitment, retention, and reactivation, they label it, is what is needed they say. Isn’t it just a long time overdue and far too late? Retention and reactivation are near impossible in some locations for several reasons but who wants to hunt when the hunting sucks. Places in the country, more than many want to talk about, are void of game animals to hunt and/or land to hunt on. Much of that game is locked up on private posted land. Overprotection of large predators has caused a rapid and permanent decline in deer and moose. This trend won’t end until something is done to control large predators – all part of the problem.

This brings us to part of a bigger problem that also effects why recruitment is near impossible.

A second article deals with the so-called antis who want to stop hunting. The article reads: “Their [antis] zealous drive to ban sensible wildlife management will never be derailed by facts or science because they refuse to consider facts or science. The flame of compassion burns hot in the antis, fanned by the fear-monger zealots and financial bottom lines of the PETA’s and Disney’s of the world.”

And why are these zealots this way? Simple. It began at their childhood when media, schools, etc. began a systematic propaganda campaign that involved two very prominent aspects of today’s post-normal culture – a perverse perspective on animals and an aggressive “boot to the throat” approach toward forcing the “non believers” to assimilate or else.

How do you fight that now?

One article talks of programs that have been tried – some proven to work they say – but in reality any success seen in this form of recruitment is only based on passing fads, i.e. it’s cool to want to eat “natural” food. The real damage was done decades ago and continues with extreme pressure today. While a passing fad might temporarily convince a few to take up the sport, it cannot be disregarded that these same people came out of that brainwashed existence of hands-off wildlife management and protect all animals at any cost.

Perhaps efforts in play now can slow the demise down but until such time as the entire systematic approach to change the way wildlife management is viewed and talked about, whose change has permeated every level of wildlife management, no real changes will be made. Hunting must, once again, become an overwhelmingly accepted part, a tradition, a heritage, of American life.

With the brainwashing that has taken place, there is no longer any such thing as sensible and rational discourse in resolving problems. The attitude is I am right and you will change to my way…end of discussion.

In the article about the antis, the author laments that they: “…refuse to consider facts or science.” Isn’t that the description of just about everyone in this exceptionally screwed up world? Scientism, which is the fake governing source of everything related to the world of science, dictates that ideological theories that support political agendas is the only “science” that matters. Scientism is the act of creating theories for the purpose of influencing public opinion – outcome driven.

If the proponents of the R3, recruitment, retention, reactivation, really want to become effective, they must return to the beginning. This involves finding enough “deep pockets” to properly fund an all out effort to infiltrate the schools and the media to propagandize this country about the benefits of hunting, etc. Once that has been accomplished, a lot will change. Not only will there be a return to the activity of hunting, but it will, once again, be supported by millions more. This change in attitude will take care of just about all the rest of the hunting community’s problems, including a disappearance of brainwashed wildlife managers who don’t know what they are doing and are operating under the smoke and mirrors of the environmentalists who taught them and placed them in their jobs.

The disease is much bigger than finding a cure by generating a recruitable interest. Stop kidding yourselves.

Share

Advice and Suggestions to the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife

A reader sent me a copy of the Maine Sportsman, specifically George Smith’s article about his “advise” to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). After reading it, I thought perhaps I would offer something similar. Sometimes I am accused of being only critical of the MDIFW seldom offering constructive criticism or even suggestions on better or different ways in which to do things.

Smith writes of the need to “unlock that door” that prohibits visitors access to the commissioner of the MDFIW. I understand the concept and how convenient it would be to just “drop in” someday and chat with the commissioner. I would like to think that the real situation playing at the offices of the MDIFW has more to do with security than a want to lock themselves up and separate them from the public. I might be wrong. We do live in a strange time in which most people are always aware and subjected to enhanced security measures.

TURKEYS

George writes about what he would do about turkey management and the role that hunting plays in that management. For the most part I think he brings up some good points, i.e. too many turkeys, too few hunters, and the barrier of license fees that prohibit more people from trying or getting involved in turkey hunting and harvesting a turkey that would aide the MDIFW with their management goals.

Originally, I had thought that Smith’s idea of including turkey hunting as part of a Big Game Hunting License wouldn’t fly because the MDIFW would not be willing to give up that revenue from turkey license fees. Is there a trade-off here? Will somehow opening up the turkey season to reduced cost (and loss of fees to MDIFW) be made up in other ways? Perhaps.

I think that consensus must be reached as to whether there are too many turkeys and how critical it is that turkey populations be reduced. If, more people gained interest in turkey hunting, perhaps down the road, as populations came more in line with management goals, turkey license fees could be levied again. If a reduction in the number of turkeys is urgently needed, and I think if we haven’t gotten there yet we soon will, then the MDIFW must do what is expedient to make the reductions in numbers necessary to be responsible for the healthy management of these game birds.

FISHERIES

Fisheries is far from my strong point and knowledge base. I am not at all that qualified to offer the MDIFW advice on how to specifically manage the fisheries in the State of Maine. How fortunate for some.

MOOSE

Odd isn’t it, in many ways, that some are opposed to the reduction of moose populations to mitigate the winter ticks’ destruction of the moose herd but think nothing about advocating the complete destruction of a herd of deer to get rid of Lyme disease. Perhaps if more evidence pointed a finger at the health risk to humans from the winter tick, mindsets might change.

I have written extensively on Maine’s moose and what I believe to be the need to bring the moose population in Maine to levels that seriously reduce the presence and perpetuation of winter ticks that are inhumanely and unnecessarily causing moose to suffer and die during long and cold winters.

Smith laments about the loss of businesses associated with moose watching now that Mother Nature took over where wildlife management failed. During the heyday of the overgrown moose populations, some scrambled and took advantage, as any good entrepreneur might do, looking for ways to exploit the abundant moose for profit. It might have been fun while it lasted but the lesson that should be learned here might be at what price do we exploit any wildlife animal for lucre? As grown adults we should see that having enough moose around that many got into the business of moose watching tours was but a flash in that pan. Time to move on. We have learned that attempting to grow moose in numbers for capitalistic enterprises is a terrible thing to do to the animal – part of the downside of attempting to manage any species while being driven by social demands.

More recent studies are suggesting what some of us knew a long time ago – that too many moose was the cause of the aggressive expanse of winter ticks resulting in high mortality rates on the large beast.

The MDIFW should move quickly to determine at what population Maine’s moose will be most healthy while still providing opportunities for Maine residents to harvest a moose and fill their freezers.

I suggest that the MDIFW, once establishing moose populations, based on sound science and not social demands, issue enough permits or a long enough season to bring the population under a control that reduces the tick infestation. Once that is accomplished, permit for the future can be issued accordingly. Letting Mother Nature do the job is not only irresponsible but is a waste of a terrific natural resource.

DEER

Smith tells readers that the MDIFW stopped managing deer in northern Maine and only “manages” moose. I don’t know if this is actually an official position taken by the MDIFW, but it appears there is at least quite a bit of evidence to support that statement.

Smith claims that because Maine failed to protect winter habitat in Northern and Western Maine, the deer herd “was lost.” I concur the deer herd was lost but I think it had other influences than just a loss of habitat. A lot of things have changed over the years, one thing being the behavior of the deer. While deer are learning how to adapt to that loss of winter habitat, we humans remain locked in our unadaptable behavior of insisting on things being the way they were when our fathers hunted the whitetails.

Each time I have listened to the worn out excuse that deer have disappeared because of loss of winter habitat, I have always asked why, if that is true, thousands of acres of old winter habitat, still in winter habitat condition, is void of deer? Never an answer.

Loss of winter habitat in the classical sense, can and does have an effect on the deer population. Attempting to somehow “manage” deer to return to unwanted winter habitat, is an example of managers failing to learn and adjust to changes of the deer population and their habits. When we see this failure, one can’t help but wonder how much we can rely on the deer managers “estimate” of deer populations and other management shortcomings.

We failed to learn quickly enough that attempting to manage moose populations at high enough levels that tourism benefitted, the moose herd suffered terribly due to exposure and anemia from blood sucking winter ticks. Deer populations are suffering but perhaps in different ways because the ecosystem in which they have traditionally comfortably inhabited have and are changing. The deer are adapting as best they can but our management tactics are not. Evidently the preference is to give up.

Too many moose compete with deer. Too many large predators kill deer and fawns and this is challenging the stability of the deer population and in some places we are witnessing the unsustainability of a deer herd. Are we to just blame it on loss of winter habitat and Climate Change or should we be responsible stewards of our wild game animals?

If we are to mitigate the cause for the lack of deer in portions of Northern and Western Maine, isn’t the responsible thing to do is to reduce the bear and coyote populations to give the deer a chance? If we simply stop deer management because loss of habitat and Climate Change is the excuse, what then can we expect of all of our game and wildlife species going forward?

Managers have a responsibility to care for all of these game species. Giving up on one species in certain areas, tells me that there is lack of knowledge and poor management skills involved. The epitome of wildlife management failures is giving in to some man’s fictitious notion that the globe is warming and the northern border of the whitetail deer’s habitat is moving south, while our neighbors to the north continue to work at managing their deer. If Climate Change is causing such chaos that is forcing the destruction of habitat for deer, then it makes sense that other more northern species are migrating south according to the changes. Is this happening? No. A warming climate, as claimed, should be reducing the affects of severe winters. Is that happening? No.

There’s little more that managers can do to stop the perceived reduction of winter habit and deer habitat in general short of demanding more totalitarian tactics to take property and property rights away from people and corporations. It’s easy, from afar, to stand in judgement over landowners, demanding they relinquish their rights as property owners in order to enhance the habitat of any wild animal. The tough part to deer management is maximizing what is left and working in earnest to make the best of what we have. Even if deer densities in Northern and Western Maine aren’t at ideal levels, is that reason enough to simply walk away and say, we tried?

There is no need to kill off all the coyotes/wolves in Maine or reduce bear populations to levels that give us more deer than are needed to balance a very valuable resource. All that is stopping this effort is the MDIFW’s insistence on caving to social demands. I suppose to them in the short term it is easier to cave in than to stand up to those demands supported by strong scientific evidence. And that may be the actual problem. Does the MDIFW have or want the strong scientific evidence?

BEAR

The MDIFW has a very good bear study program. Some claim that program is the envy of all other fish and wildlife departments. Only radical animal rights groups or individuals would argue that there are too many bear. The MDIFW publicly admits they need to reduce the bear population, but so far, have done little to solve that problem. Perhaps they are moving at a speed that only politics and social demands allow them. Time for change.

Having too many bears presents several problems – public safety and a disruption of population goals of other species such as deer and moose. Fortunately, bear hibernate, otherwise God only knows what kind of destruction they would wreak on weakened deer in deer wintering areas.

Some studies suggest that the presence of bear has more negative impact on deer than do coyotes/wolves. Maybe the current studies that the MDIFW are conducting on moose and deer will help us gain better understanding on this concept.

Regardless, it appears Maine must reduce bear populations. But how? One problem that jumps out immediately is the power of the guides and outfitters placing demands on the MDIFW to manage bears according to their wishes that would best maximize their business profits. While it is understandable that this is important to the private enterprises, should the MDIFW continue to allow increased public safety concerns and actual reductions in deer populations, and perhaps even moose, simply to appease these groups? Of course not, but when will the MDIFW move to do anything about it? Perhaps the time is now.

Like with turkey hunting, Maine needs to find easier and less expensive ways to encourage more hunters to take up the challenge. Hunters that have little interest in bear hunting might change their mind if hunting bear were part of a Big Game License all the time during open season on bear.

Bag limits should be raised. The late summer bear hunt should have a minimum of a two-bear limit – perhaps three in some areas. If that doesn’t do the trick, then a Spring bear hunt may be necessary. Regulations can be employed to mitigate the killing of cubs as has been proven in other places that have Spring bear hunts.

The MIDFW has done a respectable job of working to ward off the radical animal rights groups bent on closing down bear hunting. They should increase and improve this effort to include everything they do with wildlife management. Two bear referendums have proven that maintaining a passive posture and making management decisions based on social demands is not only irresponsible, but ridiculous, almost childish. If wildlife managers and their administration don’t have or believe the science necessary to responsibly managed their wildlife, they should be out of a job. There should be little room given to social demands when it comes to scientifically managing game.

OPERATIONS

There are certain aspects of running a fish and game department that should be within the control of the commissioner, who, of course, answers to the governor. Open and closed seasons should be within the control of the commissioner. That person, along with the managers and biologists in the department, are the ones who should know what is going on and what is needed, not the Humane Society of the United States, other animal rights groups, or even the Legislature. Such social and political powers spoil any scientific approach at wildlife management. It may take an act of the Legislature to effect such changes.

We live in a time where these powerful animal rights and environmentalists have gained control over our factories of higher indoctrination. The result of this is now showing up in our fish and game departments where the concerns are more about the “rights” of animals and away from a consumptive, use of a natural resources approach to wildlife management.

Scientifically, it has been proven that the North American Model of Wildlife Management works. Those opposed to this form of wildlife management know this and have been working tireless to “change the way wildlife management is discussed.” Along with this has come the social demands to place equal rights and protections on animals as are given to humans.

Outdoor advocates, hunters, trappers, fishermen, as well as all those who understand and believe in the necessity of consumptive use to best manage and control wildlife, should demand that the commissioner be more selective and demanding of those that are hired as biologists and wildlife managers. Candidates should be screened as to their idealism and positions on animal rights and hunting, fishing, and trapping. To responsibly utilize hunting and fishing as part of the overall plans for wildlife management, cannot have room for animal rights advocates or those opposed to this system.

Some have called for money from general taxation to support the MDIFW. It is my opinion this would be a very big mistake. First of all, before any MORE money is dumped in the lap of this department, a complete audit should be undertaken so that all will know exactly what every penny is spent on and where every penny comes from to run the department. If more money is needed, then that has to come from fee increases and not from general taxation. Here’s why.

With money sent to the MDIFW from general taxation, along with it will be demands from the general taxpayer for bigger representation. This opens the door even further for more infiltration by environmentalists who want to “change the way we discuss wildlife management.”

We have seen this already. Where once the MDIFW used to be the department of fish and game, other states have gotten rid of their fish and game names completely, replaced with departments of natural resources.

With a weakening of the managerial understanding and knowledge of how wildlife management should run, further expedites the dreaded end to responsible wildlife management, replaced by VooDoo Science and Romance Biology.

The only way the MDIFW can survive as a bonafide fish and game department is if it remains out of the control of Environmentalism.

The MDIFW does many things well. Some things they have little control over. Certainly there is room for improvement and if others, like me, realize that if we don’t do something to change those things that are sending us in the wrong direction and away from the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the good that we enjoy now will soon be lost. Let’s not let that happen.

Share

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Gets it Mostly Right

Below is a copy of a letter Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), David Trahan, included in his latest report. According to the letter, SAM has rescinded its support of Central Maine Power Company’s plans to cut another power line through Northwestern Maine in order to provide additional power sources from Canada to Massachusetts.

According to Trahan, SAM polled its members and “an overwhelming percentage of our members are opposed to the NECEC Corridor extension.”  He further goes on to write that of the remainder of the members polled, “most are undecided and only a small percentage support the effort.”

Having said that, it is a bit puzzling to me why the executive director then continues to tell CMP, “…we will now take a more neutral, neither for nor against, posture.”

While it is no question SAM is eating some crow, can anyone with a straight face rescind support by assuming a position of neither for nor against and be carrying out the wishes of the “overwhelming” majority of SAM members?

I think I understand the difficult position of SAM’s “humility” in this announcement, of which many are grateful for, while extolling the support of CMP allowing access to their many power lines, but has SAM now actually spoken and spoken honestly for its members by gleaning their survey results for overwhelming opposition to the project while attempting to somehow remain neutral?

Hmmmm.

Share

Wolf Mushroom Cloud Is a U.N.E.P. Intentional Disaster

Central Idaho elk and deer herds have suffered the same negative results from the wolf paradigm as described herein..

Share

Anti-Hunting Mental Drool

Along with the time of year when there is much activity with hunting and trapping, we all regularly are subjected to the mental drool of those who don’t like any of the activities. Maybe if they just said I don’t like hunting and trapping and left it at that, some of us wouldn’t bother to single them out to expose their limited mental capacities while disparaging a worthwhile, long-standing, cultural heritage that has unlimited benefits to both man and wildlife – hunting.

A letter scribbler in the Bangor Daily News called hunting and trapping “incivil” – evidently meaning that any reporting in the news about hunting and trapping is offensive, rude, or impolite. The writer also called hunting and trapping an unworthy event and unsportsmanlike and said hunting was no longer “fair chase.”

Here’s a couple of things to ponder. Most of these terms – fair chase, sportsmanlike, etc. – have been crafted by men over the years perhaps as a means of pulling the wool over someone’s eyes about hunting and trapping. They are man-made terms much the same as when some mental midget declares hunting is an act to “prove one’s manhood.”

Fair chase is really nothing but abiding by the laws crafted by men for men to hunt and trap animals for consumptive use. All rules and regulations for hunting and trapping are grounded in species management and public safety – nothing more. I never thought of hunting as a “sport” therefore sportsmanship had nothing to do with the act. I see hunting as something I enjoy doing that occasionally (emphasis on occasionally) rewards me with a few good meals of healthy meat.

So give it a rest already. Take your “fair chase” and “sportsmanship” to the athletic field, where these days everyone gets a “trophy.” Hunting and trapping are a well developed scientific necessity to responsibly manage and maintain a healthy and sustainable game population.

The other issue is one in which I’ve never quite understood. Obvious this whiner takes offense – finds incivility – in news reports about hunting and trapping, and yet in order to find offense, the person must be reading the reports.

As this writer mentions, they find politicians offensive and rude, as do I. I find the solution sensible. Stop reading the articles and looking at the pictures. Any moron should understand that basic concept, but evidently, that is above the capacity of some who would rather whine, bitch, and complain about something they know nothing about.

 

Share

RMEF Honored for Public Access and Habitat Stewardship

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation received the Public Lands Foundation’s (PLF) 2018 Landscape Stewardship Award at a ceremony here Tuesday for its leadership in conserving wildlife habitat and improving access on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

“The RMEF has been a long-time leader in working with the BLM, state and federal agencies, private landowners and other partners to conserve wildlife and enhance access to public lands for hunters, anglers and other outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy,” said Ed Shepard, PLF president. “RMEF’s unique niche as a grassroots, member-driven organization has made a measureable impact as a passionate and effective advocate, working from the ground up to champion access and habitat improvement projects across the country.”

The Montana/Dakotas BLM nominated RMEF for the prestigious award and highlighted RMEF’s successful Cow Island Trail acquisition in north-central Montana immediately prior to the 2015 hunting season. The 93-acre project improved access to approximately 6,000 acres of public land in the scenic Upper Missouri Breaks that were extremely difficult to reach.

“We have worked side-by-side with our BLM partners for more than 34 years and appreciate receiving this honor and recognition,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “It is a reflection of our commitment to our mission and especially is an indicator of the support we receive from our volunteers, members and other conservation partners who support us in all that we do together.”

Over the past 20 years in the Montana/Dakotas region alone, RMEF spearheaded five lands projects conveying 14,015 acres to BLM, opening or improving access to more than 56,000 acres of public lands.

“The Elk Foundation is leaving an indelible mark on the ability of current and future generations to use and enjoy our nation’s public lands,” said Jon Raby, BLM Montana State Director. “RMEF’s ability to work closely with willing landowners to develop strategic access improvement projects is a tremendous asset for BLM and the public.”

The most recent RMEF-BLM Montana effort is the Little Sheep Creek access project in southwest Montana that, when completed, will permanently protect nearly 1,000 acres of wildlife habitat and improve access to 2,600 acres of adjacent public lands.

RMEF and BLM Montana have partnered on more than 60 habitat stewardship projects that directly benefited more than 80,000 acres of habitat for elk and a diverse array of other species. Nationally, the BLM and RMEF have completed more than 1,082 projects with a joint conservation portfolio valued in excess of $143 million dollars.

Photo information (left to right):  BLM/RMEF National Liaison Linda Cardenas, BLM Western District Manager Rick Hotaling, Kemp Conn, retired BLM Deputy Assistant Director, Lands and Resources, RMEF President/CEO Kyle Weaver, RMEF Director of Lands Jennifer Doherty, RMEF Senior Lands Program Manager Mike Mueller

Share

The Heresy Destroying Western Civilization

*Editor’s Note* – As I have continuously pointed out, all guest articles are the intellectual work and opinions of the author. This article contains many excellent points to consider. However, I feel it imperative to point out my own difficulty in accepting any philosophical renderings from a Jesuit trained at the Jesuit Georgetown University.

It is a known fact that many of the accusations made by the Jesuit author referenced below are, in fact, part of the existing Hegelian Dialectic – crisis, embellishment of reactions, presentation of a solution – constructed by the very Vatican institution of which any Jesuit is sworn to loyalty. Because it is known that the Vatican is behind and controls this “environmental” movement and the “ecological theory” discussed in this article, it becomes difficult to accept at face value the philosophical embellishments of this problem in which the end game is to construct a solution, which includes obtaining the power presented as a negative political object below.

Perhaps the real takeaway from this is that if you want to do something to stop this “ecological theory” or “Heresy Destroying Western Civilization” then we need to go back to the roots of where it all began, understand the evil that exists there, and refuse to be a part of it.

But that will never happen. It is too big and too powerful and thus, as this article states, man’s purpose becomes service to the Cosmos.

Article by James Beers:

Civilization, n. 1. An advanced state of human society, in which a high level of art, science, religion and government has been reached.

Civilized, adj. 1. Having an advanced culture, society, etc.

Civilize, v.t.  1. To make civil; bring out of a savage state; elevate in social and individual life; enlighten; refine.

Civil, adj.  1Of or consisting of citizenscivil life, civil society, civil law.  2. Of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or the ordinary life and affairs of citizens.  3. Of the citizen as an individual, Civil Liberty.

Heresy, n. 1Opinion or doctrine at variance with orthodox or accepted doctrine.  2. The maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.

Europe and North America are often described as “Advanced”, “First World” or “Western” Civilization.  They think of themselves as “Leaders” in everything from UN/One-World Government movements to seeing and striving toward a future where science and a handful of very “enlightened” individuals will organize and rule the rest of us.  Their hubris in this regard knows no bounds.

Over the past century, and particularly in the last 50 years, social turbulence throughout Western Civilization has spread to every corner of society. Rural communities, natural resource management and use, and wild plants and animals (my own areas of interest) have experienced a growing and dramatic societal reversal of centuries-old norms and values. Government politicians and bureaucrats in league with numberless, wealthy Non-Government Organizations purporting to “represent’ and advocate for everything from deadly animals that kill people and imagined animal and plant communities to replace human-settled landscapes; to civil laws stripping individual citizens of their liberties and rights in the name of “native” (actually “preferred”) animals and plants.  Every manifestation of maintaining or further advancing the “civilizing” of human communities’ welfare and beneficial traditions, utilizing science and historic experience, from tree-cutting, hunting, animal husbandry, fishing and energy development to power generation, national defense, policing, immigration, incarceration, and education is either under attack or has been so restricted or eliminated as to be forgotten and unrecognizable in another decade.

In a very real sense, our civilized society is like our lifetime savings.  If we fail to protect it both physically and value-wise; we and our children not only become poor, we lose all ability to control our own destinies.  Unless we remove the robbers that stole our civilization or prevent the inflation of our rights by government decrees that make them worthless; we cannot work to replace our rights and traditions or their value because they will simply disappear again.  Our civilized society depends on many things from just laws to agreements among ourselves on common values and virtues.  When laws are passed (think Endangered Species Act, Race and Sex Preferences and Gun Possession and Travel Restrictions) that pervert our Constitutional guarantees and change our cultural, historic and traditional norms from religious practices to the education of our children and how we live our lives: the forces driving such change can fairly be described as heretical attacks, or a heresy, aimed at our civilization and our individual civil liberties.

This heresy and its quasi-religious make-up came to my attention recently in a Wall Street Journal titled Back to Nature.  The author opined about “restoring” the “countryside” by converting government lands and land bought by wealthy sponsors and Non-Government Organizations “back to its savage state”.  The “movement” is named “rewilding” and it claims millions of acres from Kenya and Britain to Los Angeles, Wisconsin and Montana.  All manner of “Conservation Projects” welcome select, paying visitors to “Wolves and Wine Pairings” in Sweden, Italy and Portugal to a Kenyan “Retreat” complete with “lectures from an expert on ‘hands-on healing’”.  A Wisconsin Wilderness offers “one to four-month training to be a ‘forest monk’” “all the while inviting their own spiritual awakening”, and all for only “$10,000 per person”.

In addition to all this quasi-religious justification, I noted the recent releases and “scientific” twaddle about the latest wild animal being introduced into the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States– the buffalo. There were many very good reasons that free-roaming buffalo were eliminated on the Great Plains at great effort and expense 150+ years ago.  Total incompatibility with farming, grazing livestock, homes, roads, towns are but a few.  The recent myths about killing buffalo to starve Native people or for Sport hunting are merely propaganda about an ancillary effect meant to engender sympathy and support for the reintroduction of buffalo and “savage” landscapes while vilifying hunting and hunters, merely one of many means that effected the elimination of buffalo.

Like Government Issue wolves and grizzly bears spreading today throughout western and upper midwestern settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States under government force: buffalo will likewise cause unbearable expenses to ranchers, farmers and other rural residents.  Buffalo will multiply and roam wider and wider areas and rural people will be told to not harm them when they ruin crops and fences and gardens; when they roam into towns in winter; when they attack hunting dogs or hunters after other animals; when they (dark-coated and all 1400 lbs. of one) stand on dark roads at night as rural people drive home at night or go to work early in the morning; or when they are startled and run wildly where children and elderly resident are in harm’s way.  Buffalo introductions are actually meant to do these things, and more, in ever-widening arcs and circles around these “rewilded” locations that are not fenced or inadequately fenced (very expensive) or poorly maintained to keep these rural life decimators out of civilized, settled landscapes. Why, you might ask is this being done?  To, according to the article, “turn ranchland into prairie or farms into forest” is why!  What they call, “spiritual rewilding” is the goal.  Note that this is the opposite of the #1 definition of “civilize”, “To make civil; bring out of a savage state.”  Buffalo and large predators like wolves and grizzly bears destroy civilization; and in the process return all of us eventually into a “savage state”.

When Dutch rewilders introduced “deer and Konik horses to a 12,300-acre parcel of marshland outside Amsterdam but failed to cull the herd in winter or introduce predators, the animals began to starve, and distraught citizens found themselves pitching hay over the fence”.  Note the “need” for predators and the aversion to “culling”; just like the advocates for introduced GI wolves and grizzly bears in The Lower 48 States.  The spreading and protection of wolves, grizzly bears and cougars with the added and continual call for an end to “culling” by anyone of any animal at any time now gets a new character in this play; buffalo herds!

Driving it all is an heretical philosophy called “spiritual” rewilding that purports to have “spiritual” roots and to train “monks” to ““turn ranchland into prairie or farms into forest”.

Quite by accident, when I read the WSJ article on Back to Nature, I was in the midst of reading a book, Docilitas,by a favorite philosopher of mine, Fr. James V. Schall, a retired Jesuit from Georgetown University (not one of my favorite Universities).  He has a PhD in Political Philosophy, taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book is On Islam: A Chronological Record, 2002-2018 (Ignatius Press, 2018).

I had only just read Chapter 2 of Docilitas, INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES, when this “monk”, “spiritual”, “back to its savage state”, “rewilding” business came to my attention.  The opening sentence of the Chapter began, “We are familiar with the expression ‘natural resources’.”  It went on from there for 8 pages to make some very apt and incisive observations about “man”, “why totalitarian theory is connected to ecological theory” and “the new ‘god’ (or sometimes ‘goddess’) who rules the ecological world.”  I would like to list some quotes from Chapter 2 that I believe any American, regardless of religious background, should find beneficial in understanding the true nature of this modern heresy of “ecological theory”.  The first step in opposing or supporting any such theory is to understand it.  I will follow these select quotes with one last comment regarding how this environmental movement has, is and will continue to affect; like buffalo, predators, et al; a wider area and every nook and cranny of our governance and society if not reoriented into a human-friendly and rural-supported system of wild plant and animal management in Western Civilization.

Quotes from Chapter 2 of Docilitas, by Fr. James V. Schall –

“Natural Resources” refers to the myriads of things in the universe that are simply there without any added human intervention.  The Epistle to the Hebrews uses the memorable expression, “things not made by human hands.” 

“Man, himself, is a ‘natural resource.’”

“Whenever and wherever he appears, he is already completely what he is(My Bolding. Jim B) though, unlike the rest of material creation, not always as he finally ought to be, which latter also depends on his own freedom, if not grace.”

“Our ‘second’ human creation, whereby we decide what we make ourselves to be, will depend on no one other than ourselves.”

“Human beings, who are evidently themselves ‘by nature’, can in turn ‘use’ what is there for their own purposes.  They can also think about why they are there, something nothing else in the physical cosmos can do.”

“Probably, we can find no more obvious division of existing things than between those beings that think about things and those which are thought about”. “And because we can think about things, evidently, we can use them or relate to them to our own purposes. Most people most of the time have thought this connection of mind and things simply made sense.”

“Recent ecological theory has sought to reverse this ‘primacy of man’ relationship.  The world, it is claimed, is superior to man.  He does not transcend it.  Instead of the cosmos being ‘for man’, we now want to instruct ourselves that man is for the cosmos.  He is subordinate to it, a mere miniscule part of it.  It is greater than he.  The ‘health’ of the cosmos subsumes man into itself, not vice versa.  Or even more graphically, man is a threat to the cosmos.  Evil does not come into the world through man’s free will, as was the case in Genesis.  It comes because of his very existence in the world and his exigencies.” 

“This ‘higher’ status of the world to man, of course, is itself an idea that does not reside in the cosmos but in some human minds.  Ecology and environmentalism as they are explained become a new faith, a new system.  It is by no means obvious that the cosmos is more important than the intelligent beings within it.  Even more, theories that subordinate man to the cosmos become a new politics of control.  Such theories in fact are more political than they are scientific.  What the world or universe can ‘support’ is itself subject to theories that purport to know what the capacity of the world is.  If man is the real threat to the world, then, obviously, those who control politics in its name will control man.  This is why classical totalitarian theory is connected to ecological theory.” 

“Since man and his desires are said to be the cause of disorder, they can be reduced to order and enforced by coercion to what our theory allows.  Man, in this view, is in the universe.  He is to make as little dent on it as possible.  He has no transcendent purpose other than keeping the world in steady existence down the ages.” 

“The individual human beings who, at one time or another, inhabit the world have no significance in themselves.  Each merely keeps the species alive down the ages. The cosmos is a ‘success’ to the extent that it looks like it did before man appeared, however he appeared.”

“Since, it is said, resources are finite, every generation is responsible for distributing them to every other generation on the basis of what it estimates these resources are.  No generation is allowed to use more than its share.  Just how this ‘share’ is to be calculated becomes itself a basis of political power.” 

“Some higher inner-world entity, the cosmos itself, becomes what is superior to man.  This force is the new ‘god’ (or sometimes ‘goddess’) who rules the ecological world.  Now eternity comes to mean not the personal destiny of finite rational persons with God, but the unending cycles of keeping the earth as it was in the beginning.” 

“In any case, man must be restricted, for as long as the earth supports life, so that he does not ‘deprive’ future generations.  Thus, future generations become more important than present generations.  By this logic, we are all now deprived of what we need by the actions of billions who went before us on this earth, by what they took and did on this earth while they were here.  All of this, no doubt, assumes there have been or will be no discoveries or developments that render the worries of the parsimonious earth out of date. The ecological world is a world without the human mind except as a tool to guarantee no changes in the world.” (My Bolding, Jim B) 

“We hear complaints that the soil under the freeways and roads of this world protests its subjection to man.  But again we ask, just who is doing this protesting?  The only answer is not the stone or the soil but human beings imbued with a certain theory that wants to leave the stones in the ground and the roads unpaved.” 

“The ‘intellectual resources’ of the beings that are not God include this understanding of themselves that they are finite.  They are indeed not God.  We are open to receive what is not ourselves.  We can be taught.  This conclusion, I think, is what Goethe meant when he said: ‘Often we are not quite sure whether in the end, we are seeing, looking, thinking, remembering, fantasizing, or believing.’  What we are sure of is that we are doing one or the other of these things in our efforts to know what is. (My Bolding. Jim B) Here is the final source of all both ‘natural and intellectual resources’.” 

Two suggested takeaways –

1.We must restore the “primacy of man” in the cosmos and recognize that man has a transcendent purpose.  Today we see how treating man as just another animal in the cosmos and rejecting the understanding of an afterlife with an all-powerful Creator leads us to far more than “astray”.  I do not see how we can reject this ecological theory or heresy by simply rejecting it and those that propound it.  If we do not accept and value the traditional mores, cultures and beliefs that have underpinned millenniums of civilizing societies how can we defend them from avid proponents of this “ecological theory” or convince others to do so?  We would be like the soldier once described by GK Chesterton as fighting to the death not because of what lay before him but because of what lay behind him like his home, family and friends: except we would have nothing behind us to spur us on to fight and prevail.

2.The political power being created by this “ecological theory” and its view of man as just another animal is seeping throughout society and destroying everything it contacts like Carolina rivers after Florence.  When we accept this theory and vision of man: why is it wrong to declare disparate rights to persons based on sex or race?  Why is it wrong to prefer certain animals over humans?   Why is it wrong for government to seize control of or abolish religious practices?  Why is it wrong to protect deadly animals attacking humans?  Why is it wrong to kill humans in the womb while harshly punishing humans that kill wolf pups or manufacture or sell fur products?  Why is it wrong to steal, cheat, take property, have laws for the rich but not the poor?  Why is anything right or wrong?

The answer is, when you accept the “ecological theory” and the power it creates like some atomic reactor; you accept the totalitarian rule that such power breeds and you will have no choice but to watch it seep into everything we do and everywhere we go.

Either we restore what once inhabited all these empty churches to give us the courage to stamp out this heresy, or we will watch things get worse for our descendants in a nasty world we soon won’t recognize.

Jim Beers

26 Sep. 2018

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Pick A Side: Eco-Imperialism Or Wildlife Conservation

Hunters conserve and save wildlife when no one else will or can.

Want to save wildlife in wild places? Convince misguided would-be “saviors” that they need to throttle back, cease making death threats and doing other terrorist things.

In just the past few days there has been a spate of Internet and social media attacks on hunters for their choices to participate in legal hunting at various places around the globe.

The attacks come in two basic forms: Ridicule and death threats. Differences of opinion are healthy. Death threats are both sick and illegal.<<<Read More>>>

Share

RMEF to Congress: Reauthorize, Fund LWCF

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation calls on Congress to renew and permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) with full, dedicated, annual funding.

“For 52 years now, LWCF has provided critical funding for landscapes, wildlife and riparian habitat, wildlife refuges and national parks, and even community recreation facilities and neighborhood parks,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “These LWCF-funded projects provide long-lasting benefits for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and all sorts of other recreational pursuits. Without congressional action, LWCF will expire on September 30 so the time to act is now!”

As of early September 2018, LWCF funding provided more than $108 million in funding that assisted 80 different RMEF land projects that permanently protected more than 152,000 acres of wildlife habitat.

“The Priority Recreational Access program is a key facet of the LWCF program,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer.  “It helps maintain and expand access to our public lands.”

One example of the LWCF Priority Recreational Access program is the Middle Creek project in south-central Colorado. RMEF recently teamed up with the Bureau of Land Management and other partners to permanently protect and conserve a 28-acre property that improved access to 8,500 acres of adjacent public land.

LWCF helps conserve wild and undeveloped places, cultural heritage and benefits fish, wildlife and recreation. Its funding comes from royalties paid by energy companies drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The royalties bring in $900 million annually, most of which is diverted to other federal programs.

RMEF urges sportsmen, women and all other Americans who cherish conservation and our public lands to contact their elected representatives and urge them to renew and fully reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Share

Michigan’s Elk, Hunting Heritage Receive Boost from RMEF Grants

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—In continuing its long-term relationship in Michigan, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation awarded more than $30,000 in grant funding to benefit elk, elk habitat and hunting programs in the Wolverine State.

“We are excited to make this funding as Michigan is celebrating 100 years of elk on the ground,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “The grants will benefit elk and other wildlife by improving habitat across the elk range.”

Michigan is home to more than 6,000 RMEF members and 19 chapters. RMEF volunteers raised the funds by hosting banquets, membership drives and other events.

“We can’t say enough about our volunteers,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “They provide their time, talents and abilities to further our conservation mission of ensuring the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage. We simply cannot do it without them.”

Here are RMEF’s 2018 projects in Michigan, listed by county:

Cheboygan County

·        Remove brush and invasive autumn olive from 70 acres of openings and seed with annual rye to build soils that will later be planted to cool season legumes that are more palatable for elk and other wildlife in the Pigeon River State Forest and can be maintained by mowing and fertilizing.

·        Remove all brush and small trees to maintain and restore openings across 111 acres of the Pigeon River State Forest while also tilling and planting vegetation to benefit elk and other wildlife.


Otsego County

·        Provide funding for a conservation easement to permanently protect 56 acres of prime wildlife and riparian habitat along the Pigeon River.


Macomb County

·        Provide funding for equipment to benefit the Trinity Lutheran School’s archery program in Clinton Township that teaches 6th through 8th grade students about archery, teamwork and competition.


Statewide

·        Provide funding for the two-day Michigan Youth Hunter Education Challenge in Lansing that offers youth an opportunity to test their skills at a variety of hunting techniques under simulated hunting conditions. The event includes archery, muzzleloading, shotgun and .22 rifle shooting in addition to wildlife identification, orienteering and hunter safety and ethics.

RMEF funded its first Michigan project in 1990, a three-year cooperative study with Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University to collect data on the movement and population of Michigan’s elk. At the time, Michigan’s elk herd was the only wild, free-ranging huntable elk herd east of the Mississippi.

Since 1990, RMEF and its partners completed 159 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects with a combined value of more than $5.4 million. These projects protected or enhanced 5,897 acres of habitat and opened or improved public access to 877 acres.

Michigan project partners include the Michigan Department of Natural Resources as well as other sportsmen, outdoor industry, additional organizations and private landowners.

Share