January 21, 2019

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 According to the letter, SAM has rescinded its support of Central Maine Power Company’s plans to cut another power line through Northwestern Maine in order to provide additional power sources from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

“When, how…and by whom?”

I recently wrote some colleagues that”:

“Bad laws” not only “ensure bad results”: they are like the bushel baskets full of oysters (and salt water) that some East Coast bay man totes in the bed of his pickup from boat to market 5 days a week.  Pretty soon the bed and then the truck shows evidence of rusty corrosion but by then it is too late.  The rust spreads, the value of the truck plummets to nothing, and he just keeps driving it until it falls apart.

These bad laws are like that salt water dripping from those baskets and we are noticing more and more corrosion while we try to tell ourselves that it isn’t too bad and we should get more years from the truck.  But we are just fooling ourselves. Rural America (and urban America as well but no one dares mention it) is the truck and we not only no longer care for it but we abuse it (and the people that live there and use it) because we accept lies from government on behalf of the rich and powerful about what a good thing it is to protect large, deadly and destructive predators that eradicate game animals, ranchers, and rural communities on behalf of pagan claptrap about biology and more hidden agendas than termites in an African termite mound.

A colleague responded that:

No need to explain why something needs to be done about this ever-increasing problem, the next line of questions, when, how…and by whom?”

——————————————————————————————————————-

My response-

THE problem is (unjust, un-Constitutional, tyrannical, etc.) absolute power given to central government bureaucrats in federal legislation like the ESA, Animal Welfare Act and similar Acts “enforced”, administered and regulated by US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, EPA, US Forest Service and BLM.  In a word, it is Political.

Regarding wolves; federal bureaucracies, and especially USFWS, have stolen money from state wildlife agencies, introduced and protected wolves and with few exceptions converted the State Wildlife Agencies and environmental scientists, Universities and “science” into little more than paid subcontractors for federal agendas.  Federal politicians and bureaucrats are rewarded with money, votes (mostly urban) and fame for doing what rich individuals and rich and radical environmental organizations want for a host of hidden agendas from eliminating hunting and private property in vast swaths of America to reducing the human population and stripping most of the human benefits created in the past century.

Both federal Legislatures and the Presidency benefit from happy environmental radicals and the “Deep State”, “Swamp”, (whatever you want to call it) that manages ESA, wolves, grizz, etc. for them.  Federal judges are nominated and ratified by those folks and this accounts for the increasing national divide in courtrooms reflected in whether “your” judge emerged under Democrat or Republican reigns.

The naked truth is that, like abortion, the Democrat Party is 100% behind this environmentalism and anyone deviating from that absolute support is marginalized and either silenced or removed.  The Republican Party has many members that talk a good game about “doing something” about these matters depending on the temper of those that elect them, but it is only talk.  Given the declining rural voting numbers, electing and expecting a good person to be able to fight to limit the power of the bureaucracy in these matters is wistful, to say the least.

All through this the federal bureaucracy gets increasing budgets, more higher-grade positions (and retirements), bigger bonuses, and a publicly unchallengeable authority no matter the basis or outcomes.

The current Administration boasts it is “de-regulating” and it is but “de-regulating” is only a temporary fix because it only reflects the authority of the current President and his appointees.  What they do can (and will) be undone done in a New York nanosecond by the next President who, if the last fifty years tell us anything, will be a “Deep State” or ”Swamp” enabler to his or her bones as will their successor for a long time.  The Mueller Probe alone tells us that but don’t forget the IRS, FBI and DOJ’s recent history as political weapons that appear to only be growing bolder and stronger about controlling us on behalf of our rulers. Consider getting political support for things like wolves and grizzlies in this climate.  A Yukon trapper just killed a grizzly near his cabin and then discovered his 10-month-old baby and its mother ripped apart where they had tried to flee the same grizzly.  Do we hear even one peep from rural Americans in the Lower 48 about the insanity of spreading and protecting grizzly bears by the federal government in the Lower 48?  From any of “our” NGO’s or state governments?

The current Administration tells us they are “purging” environmental radical bureaucrats.  I watched the current federal natural resource bureaucrats pop up out of the mud in the 1980’s and 90’s, often in high positions immediately.  Using the new race and sex preferences that financially benefitted cooperating top managers quite handsomely; common sense and scientifically educated bureaucrats were steadily replaced by extremist activists with actual animus toward the agencies and their historic missions FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE LIVING WITH AND/OR UTILIZING THOSE RESOURCES.  Not only 20+years of such “purging” and hiring (I was terminated in 2000) but more importantly how they each replicated each other when hiring, promoting and awarding bonuses like wolves and grizzlies being imposed into settled landscapes has created a federal (and most state) radical workforce that if not reduced by 75% each year and then kept below 25% of current levels while Universities and science are reformed, will defy any controls by whatever it takes.

Unless we amend this top-down, federal mandate approach to wildlife management, all the “de-regulation” and personnel changes will be temporary at best.  So, one might ask, “what can we do”?  We must change the authority and jurisdictions that has been given to federal bureaucrats and replace it with a restoration of state authority over wildlife in the State excepting those species covered by ratified Treaties.  Federal concerns about “endangered” species (not sub sp., races, populations, etc.) should be proposed to the State with rationale, objective and federal funding for however long proposed.  State acceptance should allow amendments and require both legislative and Governor acceptance.  This is where rural residents of the state need to restructure the state ratification of such proposals to give rural residents increased ratification weight in the approval process.

So how do we get there in the present political “climate”? 

I live in a very liberal, Democrat state.  The only Republican elected last month was a dogcatcher in some rural norther County and has since been forced to flee when Antifa arrived in town. (That is a joke.)

About 4 hours ago I put out my flag and picked up my Saturday edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune in the driveway.  When I opened it, the front page had an article, “Students get charged up about climate change”.  Here are some excerpts:

  • “When it comes to confronting climate change” “Some adults get struck on certain things” and “No is not acceptable.”
  • “Youthful advocates are leading rallies, gathering petitions and taking daring climate resolutions to City Halls and County Boardrooms”.
  • “But they’ve also studied their own backyards – from the urban core to the suburbs and small towns.”
  • “So iMatter (sic note the little ‘you’ in the name of one of this little-known enviro front organization) studies the energy behind other movements, including the fight for civil rights and same sex marriage.”
  • “Emotions make movements.”
  • “Young people can personalize this, can reach people at an emotional level.”
  • “Cities can make a big difference.”  “You get an enough grass roots action happening… it can force the state and federal government to move.”
  • “The city (sic Grand Marais, an expensive, elite enclave on the North Shore of Lake Superior) has even hired a climate change Coordinator, a position funded by a McKnight Foundation Grant.”
  • “It’s a very individualistic place”, said Craig Feist, 17, of Finlayson, about 100 miles north of the Twin Cities.  “People have their land, and they consider that their domain and do kind of whatever they want to do on it.”

Now I could call this a Socialist/Communist approach to brainwashing young minds and setting the stage for a government takeover because it is the reverse of Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution wherein the rural peasants occupied and purged the cities and the elites.  It is a rare glimpse into how these liberal bastions gain, keep and control political power.  Here we have the privileged elites using their children to lay the groundwork for purging the countryside and those yokels that oppose any of their agendas. However, I ask you to consider how “our side” in this environmental confrontation has behaved and can be expected to continue to behave:

  • Do we energize young rural students to dismiss adults with whom they disagree?
  • Do we send kids into the cities to explain what wolves and grizzlies and many other GI (Government Issue) animals are doing to our communities?
  • Do we send kids forth to defend property rights to property-less urbanites?
  • Do we condemn urbanites for being herd-animals (versus “individualistic”)?
  • Do we presume to brag that we have “studied” our home places and therefore have the right to lecture and abjure urban know-nothings?
  • Do we send forth youthful missionaries to cities to explain why it is so important to “Keep and Bear Arms”?
  • Would we rightly expect rural youth to be listened to in almost any city if they extolled such things publicly without fearing of violent reactions?

Until we can put the environmental genie of unjust federal power back in the bottle I cannot imagine how anything really changes.  We are forced to maneuver outside the walls of government about controlling wolves; limiting future areas to be infested; how controls will be effected; who will do the controlling; how long will controls be effected; and how will it all be paid for?  Traps are nasty and inhumane.  Snares are icky and unacceptable non-target species.  Planes are illegal and uncontrollable over property.  Can controls be forced in private properties or government landholdings?  When can control be exercised?  When killing livestock or pets?  When in a yard?  When appearing sick?  Who is responsible for rabid wolves or human infection outbreaks like tapeworms, etc.?  Can wolf population target levels be based on big game numbers, livestock depredations, human attacks or imagined threats like hanging around school bus stops?  Can hides be sold for trophies or home decorations?  Can any County or State say, “We don’t want any wolves here and we want to be able to kill any wolf here year-around”?

It is only realistic to see a hodgepodge of temporary and conflicting results emerging and being challenged (until the next President is elected).

Jim Beers

8 December 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.

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

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

Too Many Deer? Not Enough Forest? Who Gets to Decide?

I was sent a link to an article about the woes of Wisconsin in places where someone gets to say there are too many deer and that having “too many” deer is not good for the forest and may even promote disease in animals and people. Whose perspective is right? Who gets to decide how it should be?

Perhaps the work written of in this article is all, mostly, or some or not true. Who is to say really. We read it as working class stiffs and either agree with it because it fits into our own narratives conveniently, or dispel it because it doesn’t. So what’s the problem?

If there are too many deer, who gets to make that determination and on what basis do they use to decide? The researcher in focus says that where there are “too many” deer, it’s not good for the forests. Who says?

In reality, one has to wonder how much of any of all this discussion would even be happening if our society hadn’t turned into one of hatred of man and preferred affection of animals? There was a day, really not that long ago, when it was never questioned about why game managers were manipulating herds to the benefit of consumers/hunters. Yes, people needed and wanted deer meat to eat. It was not questioned. It was actually encouraged…if today’s young, progressives can believe that.

Today, it’s a different story. Hatred, greed, anger, radical animal protection has turned the table. When you combine all of this with money available to carry out the scientism of outcome-based studies that will be used to prop up environmentalists’ groups, used to sustain their onslaught of money-making lawsuits, is there anything left that at all resembles true scientific processes?

To somebody, Wisconsin has too many deer. To others, there’s not enough. To somebody, the number of deer that exist are damaging the forest. To others, what exists is normal. But the real question should be looked at from whose perspective these statements are being created? And who gets to decide?

What I see, mixed in with all the greed and corruption, are entities like the forest industry buying whatever “research” they can afford to protect their working forests. This is not unlike hunting organizations wishing to protect the very game they desire to chase which happens to be a very lucrative industry in its own right. Toss in the billions of dollars spent by well-funded environmental groups and it’s a war.

Was it always this way? It seems that before Environmentalism reared its extremely ugly, hate-filled head in the 1970s, the forest industry and the hunting industry go along quite well. This union was also readily accepted by society as part of American Heritage.

As has become the norm, money talks and $#!% walks. Money and greed can get you anything you want because there’s enough greed to go around. Perhaps the researchers are doing their work rooted in their own brainwashed and propagandized perspectives and don’t see the corruption behind it all. We either accept it or reject it and whoever gets the most support in numbers and money, wins.

What a life!

Share

CMP Power Line and the Global Warming Lie

There has been much discussion about Central Maine Power Company’s (CMP) proposal to cut a swath of forest in Western Maine in order to run an electrical power line from Canada to Massachusetts. It is being sold as a project that is necessary because it is a major step in reducing “Green House Gases” which in turn would be a “positive step against global warming.”

A spokesman for CMP said, “If we don’t have good reliable long winters, if we don’t have a reliable snowpack, if we see radical changes in our forest type that climate change affects everything about Maine, sportsmen as well as everyone else will be affected by it.”

HORSE MANURE!!!

How you view this issue is your business but please don’t make your decision based upon the giant fraud, the hoax, the money-making lie of global warming, i.e. the fake “Climate Change.” Climate Change as presented is an unprovable hoax conjured up by those propagating a scam to defraud the people of billions of their dollars; to instigate fear to more easily control the masses. Scientifically, global warming is NOT happening, has never happened and the only way it might possibly happen is through the deliberate continued manipulation of the weather by the Government.

Don’t be conned into making any decision based on the lies of global warming. You’ll have to sort through all the other lies as well.

Share

Hypocritical Ignorance in Science?

In another article that was published on this website, a reader and contributing author of this same website, left a link to a story of how “scientists” were physically tossing dead sockeye salmon from one river onto the banks to see how well the “fertilizer” causes the trees to grow bigger. As the old saying goes, “No shit Dick Tracey!”

The article more or less states that in the “natural” process of events, the dead salmon go to waste being washed back downstream. Is that a statement of fact or plain ignorance? It is impossible for me to believe that in the great scheme and natural design of things, dead salmon in a stream, caused by natural events, carrying out a natural continuance of a natural process of floating back downstream to…somewhere, is “being wasted.” For those who espouse to the theory of nature balancing itself, how can scientists deliberately disrupt the natural order, even if they believe the natural order of sockeye salmon involves “going to waste?”

Much of the hypocrisy is found in that it depends upon what species scientists decide to manipulate, even when they are disrupting the “natural order” of things, as to whether such actions are protested against and lawsuits brought.

Sometimes it just appears as though ignorance and hypocrisy are running amok rendering so-called “studies” ridiculous and flawed.

Share

The Real Reason Wheat Is Toxic – Not The Gluten

Save Western Wheat Fields! Oops… Ignore the poisoning of the bread loaves and save the wildlife…

Depopulation, population control, management of people population.. Destroy the Domestic and Wild food resources..

Eugenicists Extraordinaire gone postal.. Uh ties into UNEP… But don’t bother to go look…

Continue with the misdirection Scooter…

 

Share

The Psychological Profile of the Typical U.N.E.P. Pro UNEP and Anti UNEP Clones

Biology, ecology and zoology, it must be remembered is a philosophical method used in ‘someones’ figment of the imagination or creation of the mind that makes up their personal view of the way they see the ecological environment they’re walking about in and its various relationships they temporarily observe which sets in motion their own imaginings. This view resides in their mind and their mind alone, and therefore it is fictitious in nature and can be reflected on paper as an opinion of their imagination ‘mimicking’ the physical world as they might have temporarily experienced it.. Then of course when this data is used to restrict the use of the earth’s resources for obvious political agenda one must consider data manipulation for that political objective.. Thus the blow back against those advocating for this nonsense is justified simply because they have psychologically underestimated those they’ve targeted with these psychological imaginings they support and advocate for… The arguments they’ve made for these bogus science theories goes against reason by appeals to emotion. Worse the majority of these advocates have never observed any of these alleged claims made in the original written down explanations of those imagining they’ve actually observed these various relationships in the ecological environment. It’s all belief based thus faith based arguments in something someone allegedly imagined that not one of those supporting the claims through their advocacy can substantiate with irrefutable evidence.. Dispossessing people of their ‘freedoms’ and lands, for the restrictive practices of pseudo environmental sciences… As well dispossessing people and yourselves out of multiple use privileges on public lands lands for the same restrictive practices of pseudo environmental scientific nonsense.. Is insanity. There is your psychological profile of your own idiocy dear U.N.E.P. clones… A continuation of your psychological analysis which strangely enough matches your Anti UNEP opponents who also never read the UNEP tome, thus both sides psyches would go something like this; Neurotic. Over reactionary.. Paranoid.. Cowardly, Tyrannical.. Brainwashed. Insane.. very limited knowledge, politically motivated by appeals to emotional nonsense.. At varying degrees fitting to the evaluation of the ambulatory psychopath.. Impossible to have a rational reasoned discussion with.. See anyone from the WLNs and the SWW groups.. Control freaks. Fascists. Narcissistic. Crazy.. Zombies, living in darkness thinking it is enlightenment..Advocates for a centralized system of political dominance.  All of these people are identical.. biased bigoted and dishonest.
Share

No Grizzly Hunt

No surprise.. I expected this outcome months ago.. I knew all along the hunt was not going to happen.. By design, all involved just put on a political charade for the purpose of further instilling hatred between pro and anti hunting clowns and of course hatred for large carnivores that have more rights than citizen serf slave subjects that can’t figure this game out.. Judge Dana Christensen at the 9th Circuit in Missoula keeps the Grizzlies on the endangered species list after 27 days of alleged legal deliberations. No hunting the big bad bears… The United Nazis Environmental Policies wins again…

A little piss ant lawyer in a black robe playing goddess helps the mad  scientismists save their bears..

 

 

Share

The Hilariousness of Anti Grazing Public Lands Advocates Crying over AUMS fees

And labeling the American rancher welfare queens..

 

The Real Size of the Bailout

“The price tag for the Wall Street bailout is often put at $700 billion—the size of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. But TARP is just the tip of the iceberg of money paid out or set aside by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. In her book, It Takes a Pillage: Behind the Bailouts, Bonuses, and Backroom Deals from Washington to Wall Street, Nomi Prins uncovers the hush-hush programs and crunches the hidden numbers to calculate the shocking actual size of the bailout: $14.4 trillion and counting.”

The bankers bailouts blow the ranchers subsidies out the window…

OK anti grazers; shut up!

Share