May 12, 2021

Beware the Surveys Remember the Delphi Technique

NewOldRopeThe State of Maine is in the middle of gathering information from licensed hunters and fishermen, and in some cases the general public, that we are told they want in order to better make decisions on how to proceed with and create new wildlife management plans. Science used to be and still is the best way.

Two surveys were recently completed by Responsive Management in cooperation with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). One is the 2016 Maine Big Game Survey that collects responses from licensed hunters, both resident and non resident, large land owners and the general public, about hunting in general and specifically about land access and big game species of bear, moose, deer and turkeys.

The other survey, completed by the same entities, collects responses from only licensed fishermen, both resident and non resident. There will also be public meetings held across parts of the state to listen to the public about big game management and fisheries management. Check the MDIFW website for times and places.

Surveys and polls are basically useless instruments. To what severity the uselessness is achieved is dependent upon the methodology of the poll or survey, i.e. who is surveyed, the demographics, who funded the survey, and how the questions are asked and the words used to form the questions. I have taken some time to examine the survey results for both the hunting and fishing reports. As far as surveys go, these two are not terribly bad at manipulating questions and/or concluding answers that are misleading. But…..

Before I get into a couple of specifics of these two surveys, let me give readers a chance to understand how questions and answers are manipulated to achieve desired results. I’m not suggesting that anything in these surveys was done deliberately. I am suggesting that through indoctrination over the years, survey and poll administrators learn how to present questions from trained experts who do know how to fudge data. There is lots of money to made from doing that. Even though in this case the administrators may not have deliberately devised questions to mislead, human nature, along with the truth of polls and surveys, will render faulty results.

For those who have read my writings, and in particular read my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?“, we know that during the process that led up to the (re)introduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Congress granted $200,000 to a group who wanted to introduce wolves, to answer specific questions Congress had about the wolf. (The questions are immaterial to this article)

Because this group wanted wolves badly, they set out to prove to Congress, truth be damned, that wolves were a good thing. This is where a faintly recognized term surfaced – the Delphi 15. This came about because this Congressional-appointed group went out and contracted (not necessarily for money) 15 “scientist” to answer some questions that the group would use to convince Congress. The 15 scientists were kept secret and none of them knew that there were any others involved, thus, they did not know their names.

I discovered through research that this group, ordained by Congress, quietly and as secretly as they could, opted to use what is called the Delphi Technique to achieve the answers they were looking for that would fit their wolf narrative. 15 scientists, unknowingly conned via the Delphi Technique, and there we get the title, The Delphi 15.

To better explain about the Delphi Technique, below is posted what I wrote in my “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” book.


The Delphi Technique

Take notice that Dr. Bergerud, in his email states that: “I believe US Fish and Wildlife hired a consultant with questionnaire skills.” Bingo! That is what the Delphi technique is1. Some of us may not know much of anything about the Delphi Technique but I’m willing to wager most of us have been Guinea pigs to it.

The best way to define what the Delphi Technique is in simple terms is to say that it is a method in which those administering a brain storming session, or in this case a “questionnaire,” manipulate the questions and the procedures in order to get the end result that is desired. Let me give two classic examples of this.

First would be a poll. Every day in our lives, perhaps more so in the news, we are constantly being barraged by the results of polling. Should we believe the results of the polls we are given? Absolutely not, especially when we are not given the questions and the structure and context to which those questions were presented.

Most of us have taken poll questions. Have you ever been given one in which you really could not find the “correct” answer? That is the honest answer you would give if you had that opportunity. That becomes the result of the Delphi Technique.

The other, perhaps not quite as obvious and a part of everybody’s life, is a brain storming session. These take on several names, such as, symposium, seminar, public forum, town hall, etc. I’ve been involved in many but for most of them I had no idea what was really going on. I certainly do now and avoid them like the plague.

Those administering the event, are usually led by one or two people. It is those people who “know what they are doing.” They want to achieve a specific result and therefore must manipulate the setting and events to their advantage – much in the same way as a magician.

Let’s say that you attend a public forum to gather input from the public on ways to make your community a “better place.” Who gets to decide what a “better place” is? What most people don’t know is those administering the forum have already decided what will make your community a “better place.” Their job is to make you think you were part of the decision making process. All they have to do is present some kind of evidence that shows the majority of people in your community decided what was a “better place” and to make it happen.

Often we find ourselves being placed into “breakout sessions.” These come complete with a table and/or chairs in a circle, an easel board and a facilitator. It’s the trained facilitator’s job to force the hand to achieve a desired result.

During this brain storming breakout session, you might be asked to offer ideas on what would make your community a better place. Take notice the next time you find yourself in this setting, that the facilitator will prompt or edge the group with “ideas” of his or her own. These “ideas” are predetermined. Seldom are there ever results during the forum. We might be told that what the consensus was will be shared. It can easily be said, because each facilitator, by instruction, added to the list the same “idea”, making it a majority “consensus.”

Imagine what the results would be if the administrator and the facilitators only offered up questions, like in a poll, that forced participants to provide answers they didn’t really want to.

Dr. Bergerud indicated in his statement, the tactics used by Delphi administrators. He said that nobody in the group of 15 knew who the others were. This is very important. They could not, before, during or after, consult with each other. After all, they might discover they had been duped.

In the Volume I Summary of “Wolves for Yellowstone: A Report for the United States Congress,” the report willingly exposed some of the schemes of the Delphi Technique when they wrote that they had withheld important information from the 15 members, seeking their opinions of the subject. Does the “Best Available Science” operate on opinions obtained from scientists who are denied information and data? Does this “science” have “different meaning for different people?”

In essence that is the Delphi Technique that was used on the “Delphi 15” of those commissioned by the United States Congress to get answers to 4 questions. Do we have the exact questions given to the 15 members? Do we have the exact answers provided by the 15 experts? Is this what is described by the United States Government as “Best Available Science?”


Within the two surveys used in Maine, sometimes questions are asked while seeking an answer from more than two choices. The wording of the choices can be crafted in such a way as to mislead, or misdirect the survey taker. In addition, the responses sought after may not cover the full spectrum of what the person being survey might answer if simply asked to tell their opinion of something. It is also relevant to report that when people read such reports, they cherry pick, or are misled, and see only what they want to see or what the administrators of the survey want them to see.

Let me give a couple of examples from the hunting survey. In offering summaries and explanations of methodology, the surveyors wrote: “Another question gauged respondents’ comfort level regarding wildlife around their homes. Using a continuum from the most comfortable (“I enjoy seeing and having wildlife around my home or on my property”) to the least comfortable (“I generally regard wildlife around my home or on my property as dangerous”), a large majority of each group (70% of the general population and 80% each of landowners and hunters) chose the highest comfort level, and nearly all the rest chose the second most comfortable level.”

Many of you may ask what’s wrong with that. It’s easy to explain really. Surveyors are seeking what they call “comfort level” but they don’t directly define what that means. Instead, they offer us an example of both ends of what they call a “continuum.” Note that at the “least comfortable” the choice offered is that they “generally regard wildlife…as dangerous.” Dangerous? Where did dangerous come in? Can’t property owners not care whether they see wildlife even if they don’t think it’s dangerous? Think of the possibilities of how questions and choices of responses can certainly misrepresent truth.

Another example in the hunting survey has to do with gathering input about the respondents on their knowledge of the animal specie bear, moose, deer and turkeys. Exactly how the survey takers were asked the question I don’t know, but the results show that an overwhelming majority of people answered that they knew “a great deal or a moderate amount” about the four species. This, of course, is simple self-perception. If the survey question does not contain qualifiers, like do you have a degree in wildlife biology, surely of what value does such a question hold? Is this used to convince the uneducated public and unsuspecting wildlife managers that because the respondents know so much about the species, their answers have scientific value? (only if convenient?)

In the fishing survey what struck me most about this survey was this, written in the Executive Summary: “The study entailed a telephone survey of resident and nonresident licensed anglers in Maine, age 16 years or older. ” The survey is designed ONLY for licensed fishermen – resident and non resident. While the hunting survey involved the general population, the fishing survey does not. While perhaps not completely necessary, from what I gather, the surveyors didn’t go out of their way to explain why the general public was not also survey about fishing and their support or non support of the sport. Isn’t this important to wildlife managers? They tell us repeatedly that as far as hunting goes, they must make their decisions based on social toleration. Therefore, the survey provides no examples of why a member of the general public might choose not to fish. Isn’t it just as important to understand the reasons to not fish as well as what kind of fishing one prefers.

Let me further explain. I was reading George Smith’s article this morning about how this fishing survey proves that anglers don’t care if they catch big fish or a lot of fish. This may or may not be true, but do we really know that? Smith also writes: “Is it possible that if the fishing or hunting sucks for a long, long time folks forget what they are doing.  Habit without product?  The new breed of conservationist?”

This statement also holds a certain amount of truth. There’s also another byproduct of Maine fishing and tainted surveys that can be misleading and/or not giving the whole picture, as we see above. Smith writes in his article that Maine fishermen, 77%, support catch and release rules and yet the survey says that 81% of fishermen did not choose to fish in designated catch and release waters. Choosing what fits our narrative?

To fully understand the results of the fishing survey, you would have to fully understand the demographics. While demographics are in the survey, the average person cannot distinguish why people mostly fish with a spinning rod and reel and yet support catch and release rules. Is it that they prefer everyone else practice catch and release so they have more fish to catch and keep? Or, as it appears to me, whoever presented the question asked it in such a way as to create confusion and/or mislead. According to what Smith wrote, he said that 77% of fishermen “support” catch and release rules. Does that mean they WANT more catch and release rules or we just being told to think that catch and release is preferred over catch and keep?

The answer is, we don’t know, nor does this survey tell us. Therefore, if we bear in mind that statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, managers, sportsmen, pundits and my grandmother can pull out of these surveys anything they want that fits their narrative. I suppose MDIFW managers will do the same thing, which leaves us with the question, why did we spend all this time and money on these useless surveys?

There will be public meetings where citizens can go and say their piece. There will also be an Online survey where anyone interested can offer comments. Please bear in mind what I hope I have taught you here.

When it’s all said and done, MDIFW will spend the greatest part of their time copying and pasting all the previous game management plans and adding a little change here and a little change there. So why can’t we spend the money and time on worthwhile events?


Maine: An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

SAMWhen I first heard about this proposal from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I read about it at George Smith’s blog at the Bangor Daily News. After reading his article and his words about the proposal, I began crafting a response. Then I realized much of what was written in the Bangor Daily News, didn’t make a whole lot of sense. I held the article because it put the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine in a bad light unfairly. I decided I would wait until I received a copy of the actual text of the bill proposal. *Note* – The proposal, shown below, is titled as a “Working Draft” so please bear that in mind. Also, a thank you to David Trahan for providing a copy of the proposal.

I will paste the “Working Draft” below, followed by any comments I may have about the text of the bill.


February 1, 2016

            An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA § 10111, is enacted to read:

10111.Contingency wildlife management provisions.  In the event an initiated ballot measure is approved that reduces or alters wildlife management methods or management options available to the department, the department shall implement the following management measures in relation to any wildlife or fish species significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved measure.  For purposes of this section, “animal” means a wildlife or fish species that is significantly affected directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure.

1.Nuisance animal expenditures.  The department may not expend any revenues on the control of animals causing damage pursuant to section 10053, subsection 8 or any other nuisance animal control activities in excess of the amount spent in the Fiscal Year prior to the effective date of the initiated ballot measure adjusted every year thereafter for inflation.

2. Relocation. The department must restrict the relocation of any animal causing damage or a nuisance animal to areas where the carry capacity for that species has not been met.

3. Sterilization program. The department may not establish or implement a sterilization program to control the population of an animal.

4. Waste application. The department may not dispose of any animal in a manner that would constitute waste under section 11224 and may not dispose of any animal killed by the department on state-owned land. 

5. Landowner depredation program.  The department shall develop by rule a landowner depredation program that includes but is not limited to the following.

A. A limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner or the landowner’s agent but may not exceed the limit allowed by licensed hunters.

B. A requirement that a landowner must donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established pursuant to paragraph A, to the Hunters for the Hungry program under section 10108, subsection 8.  If the animal is not suitable for donation under that program, the department shall assist landowner in the proper disposal of the animal but may not authorize the landowner to retain the animal or any part of the animal beyond the limit established in paragraph A.

The department shall report to the joint standing committee on matters relating to fish and wildlife by January 5 annually on the landowner depredation program including, but not limited to, the number of animals killed pursuant to this subsection.

Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection are major substantive as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A. 

6. Impact analysis. Within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to Legislature, the department shall conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report its analysis to the joint standing committee with jurisdiction over fish and wildlife matters. The department’s analysis must include, but is not limited to, a biological and ecological impact assessment, the economic impact to the department and  how the department will need to adjust its management practices to maintain a healthy wildlife population.  



This bill establishes contingent wildlife management provisions that become effective when an initiated ballot measure is approved that reduces wildlife management methods available to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.  The provisions of this bill only apply to the animals that are significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure.  Those provisions include the following.

  1. It places a cap on the revenue the department may expend to control nuisance animals to the level spent in the Fiscal Year prior to the effective date of the initiated ballot measure.
  2. It prohibits the department from relocating a nuisance animal to areas where the carry capacity for that species has not been met.
  3. It prohibits the department from establishing or implementing a sterilization program to control the population of an affected animal.
  4. It provides that the department may not dispose of animal in a manner that would constitute waste under existing statute and prohibits the department from disposing of an animal killed by the department on state-owned land.
  5. It requires the department to develop a landowner depredation program that sets a limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner and requires a landowner to donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established by the department to the Hunters for the Hungry program.
  6. It provides that within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to Legislature, the department must conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report its analysis to the joint standing committee with jurisdiction over fish and wildlife matters.
  7. It requires the department to report on the landowner depredation program by January 5 annually to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

My Comments:

10111 – About the only comment I have about this section is that it involves the use of undefined words. It is asking that any approved ballot measure that “reduces or alters” wildlife management options….and, “significantly affected.” While it is difficult to define such use of terms, history should have taught us that these vague terms become a determination made by lawyers and judges – not always in the best interest of everyone or anyone.

Nuisance Animal Expenditures: I have been told that much of the reason for this alternative wildlife management proposal is aimed at limiting wildlife management lawsuits by animal rights groups and environmentalists. I have also been told that it would be another year before any constitutional amendment would be forthcoming – an amendment deemed to help protect Maine citizen’s right/privilege to hunt, fish and trap.  One would have to wonder then, whether or not this proposed legislation might actually be more effective that any of the proposed constitutional amendments I have seen in the past few years. More in a bit.

The key to this “Nuisance Animal Expenditures” can be found in the reference to Maine law 10053, subsection 8 – The coordination of animal damage control functions throughout the State, including supplemental assistance for the control of coyotes and other nuisance wildlife that exceeds normal funding and staffing levels within the department;”

We have to wonder if this section is here in response to last year’s bear referendum, where concern from sportsmen, as well as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), about the possibility that should the anti hunting referendum pass, uncontrolled bear populations would create a nuisance and thus a cost to the MDIFW. Not being an expert on legalese, I do have to wonder if this can come back and haunt sportsmen and MDIFW.

Relocation: Makes sense that any animals that need to be captured and released only be released in areas where there aren’t too many of the same species already. (Maybe this should be amendment to read that any nuisance animals, big or small, be released in the back yards of those promoting anti-hunting legislation.)

Sterilization Program:  All sterilization programs are not cost effective and don’t work. I have no problem with placing this restriction until such time that science devises better methods – if ever. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that game animals are a resource. Employing any sterilization methods over providing game harvest, should never be approved.

Waste Application: I see this as a real “in-your-face” to the Humane Society of the United States, and other totalitarian animal rights/environmentalists groups in order to suppress the hypocrisy often found with these groups. These organizations are always quick to point out any wanton waste of a wildlife species, while they routinely kill millions, or approve of such, of unwanted cats and dogs each year. This action may not put the responsibility directly back on environmentalist, referendum seekers, it would, it seems to me, require petitioners to provide contingency plans on what to do with the wildlife that needs disposing of due to uncontrolled populations.

Landowner Depredation Program: This is mostly self-explanatory. However, I would like to point out here that the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) should tread lightly here in that they do not anger and/or alienate private land owners. If wildlife is creating a nuisance to landowners, i.e. crop damage, etc. we must protect that landowners right to protect his property. If the writing of this depredation program limits a landowner’s ability to protect his property, then a can of worms will be opened – the result being a losing proposition for everyone.

A landowner should have his protected right, under the guidance of state officials, to deal with nuisance wildlife that is a threat to his/her property. Placing a limit as to how many animals that landowner can keep and/or forcing the landowner to give the deer to Hunters for the Hungary (I think this should be worded in a way as to not make Hunters for the Hungry the exclusive feeding program) may not be in the best interest of all in the long term. Sportsmen need the generosity of the landowner to access his land. Pissing them off is counterproductive.

Impact Analysis: – Not a bad idea except MDIFW will complain that they don’t have any money or resources to do this. Readers should probably need to understand as well that any “impact analysis” can be, and most often is, political in nature. In the recent bear hunting referendum, many sportsmen oohed and aahed over MDIFW’s effort to educate the public about the repercussions should this bear hunting referendum pass. Would sportsmen be so quick to pat MDIFW on the back if they had supported this referendum?

Sorry, but I don’t have that kind of faith in government of any kind. I understand why SAM would be calling for such an impact statement, and I certainly do not oppose real scientific management and assessment of wildlife issues. The problem is we don’t very often get that anymore.

We live in a time when a psychopathic society, in love with animals, and educated by psychopaths who aren’t interested in the real scientific process. They are interested in romance biology and other avenues of utter nonsense.

Maine lucked out this time because the MDIFW happened to come down on the side of sportsmen. What will happen next time? What happens when the next governing body of MDIFW believes nature will balance itself out and self-regulate?

It appears that in another year SAM and their associates will endeavor to pass a constitutional amendment – one they think will protect their right to hunt, fish and trap, which will, consequently, limit or eliminate the countless lawsuits Maine faces to destroy hunting, trapping and fishing. Those promoting the amendment shouldn’t get their hopes too high that the state would pass a real effective amendment.

Most amendments that I have read about and followed in my research, end up with a copy-and-paste version of somebody’s idea of a good constitutional amendment. What they end up with is a document that suggests to the states’ fish and wildlife department that they will do everything in their power to provide “opportunities” for people to hunt, fish and trap. As I pointed out the other day, it’s extremely easy to provide an opportunity to hunt. One permit, once a year to hunt a moose is an opportunity.

Historically what happens is fish and wildlife departments take up arms (figuratively of course) against any constitutional amendment that mandates their department to manage game for surplus harvest. This effort provides the maximum game populations so everyone can harvest game, provided of course each department does their job. This is opposed by fish and game departments because they don’t want the mandate pressing down on them.

Is this what Maine sportsmen and Maine voters want? Amendments without that mandate are ineffective.

If this proposal of SAM’s passes, it may actually have more teeth than a constitutional amendment. Why? Because most sportsmen think that an amendment will protect their right to hunt, trap and fish and that it will limit or do away with the lawsuits and ballot initiatives Maine sees on a regular basis. While this is important, they shouldn’t put their faith and trust in government and government agencies. Sportsmen should not just settle for a protection of opportunities. They should demand that the managers build populations for surplus harvest. Otherwise, stop paying their salaries and retirement benefits.



Second Amendment Brainwashing

BrainwashThe following statements have been credited to Adolf Hitler in the book Mein Kampf:

“The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blase young gentlemen, but to convince, and what I mean is to convince the masses. But the masses are slow-moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them….”

“The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”

“The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.”

“All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. …”

“To whom should propaganda be addressed? To the scientifically trained intelligentsia or to the less educated masses? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. …”

Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and pioneer of public relations and propaganda usage, and who was also part of the propaganda force used by Wellington House (later Tavistock) to influence public opinion pertaining to World War I, said:

“Whatever of social importance is done today, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda.”

“Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment. Once he could read and write he would have a mind fit to rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with published scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints.”

What better way to “address(ed) always and exclusively the masses” than beginning with pre-school and ending up at college? Eventually, the education, through repeated propaganda, will begin in the womb. Americans should know, but probably do not, that our education factories were taken over many decades ago; the result of which is what we see today in our social and moral decline – or do you see such declines? For those that don’t know about the takeover, let me list, briefly, a few of the organizations and think tanks that decide what you and I were taught, what our children are being taught and our children’s children: Aspen Institute, Brookings Institute, Institute for Policy Studies, MIT, National Training Laboratories, Rand Research, Stanford Research Institute, Wharton School, Tavistock, and many more.

Guy Debord, in “Comments on the Society of the Spectacle” tells us: “Spectacular government, which now possesses all the means necessary to falsify the whole of production and perception, is the absolute master of memories just as it is the unfettered master of plans which will shape the most distant future. It reigns unchecked; it executes its summary judgments.”

The short of it is, you and I have NOTHING to say about how our kids are educated and what crap is being drummed into their heads. This should have become obvious long ago when Lyndon B. Johnson, as part of his propaganda tool called, War on Poverty, pushed and passed the Elementary and Secondary School Act. Designed for failure (Failure in this case pertains to the fact that the program failed to accomplish what Americans were told it would accomplish.) it set the stage for the next step toward the manipulation of education (propaganda) for the masses – always the masses.

In 1979 president Jimmy Carter created a stand-alone Department of Education – a better way for centralized government to wield power and brainwash the masses – Spectacular Government.

Hiding behind propaganda to, “establish standards of excellence for all children,” President Clinton and Al Gore created the “Goals 2000” education program. After propaganda was used to convince the people that our education system was “failing,” (all designed to “fail” and be replaced with a new program.) along came George W. Bush who was going to, once and for all, end the “failure of our schools” and thus was born, “No Child Left Behind.” Consequently, many children got left behind (again propaganda efforts to convince Americans our schools were failing) and with the election of Barack Obama, government got brave enough, the result of years of brainwashing and effective propaganda, to implement an education program with communism built right in – Common Core.

Common Core is a global initiative designed as a one-size-fits-all propaganda and brainwashing tool to be used and administered by a centralized, one-world government or global department of education. If successful, by the standards of the global fascists pushing the program, Americans and their children will be learning what a centralized, fascist government intends for them to learn.

And yet, we eagerly deny that there is anything wrong with our education system and with it refuse to accept that we have all been brainwashed to believe and accept certain propaganda that influences heavily the way we think and act, i.e. trust Government.

It’s odd, that should anybody consider these possibilities, the way the brainwashing and propagandizing works, the disbelief is remarkably ridged, forcing people to deny that such sinister acts exist, claiming they would recognize it if they saw it. Thus the difficulty in convincing brainwashed people they are brainwashed. What does it take?

Note: If you are not, in the slightest, convinced of any of this brainwashing mechanisms, it is quite pointless to continue reading.

Recently I wrote, “Second Amendment is Considered ‘Infringable’ by Most.” I presented examples that showed how the Courts went out of their way to protect other rights, such as First and Fifth Amendments, and failed to show the same perspective and respect for the Second Amendment and its protection.

Heavily entrenched into debates about the Second Amendment, is the nonsense about “reasonable restrictions.” Sometimes discussed, even by people who self-proclaim their avid and unwavering support of the Second Amendment, is that there should be restrictions on what kinds of “arms” should be limited by fascism, infringing on the Second Amendment.

I have often heard the argument from those opposed to the right to keep and bear arms, that the Second Amendment was designed and intended for “the times in which it was written” – whatever exactly that means. The twisted reasoning here is that at the time the Bill of Rights was crafted, there was a need that some people should be armed but only armed with the weapons of that day – i.e. a musket. It might be assumed that the common man didn’t own a cannon because he couldn’t afford one. But, if he could afford it, and wanted it, he had the right to keep and bear ARMS. Today, the same financial restrictions apply, however, one does not have a right to own them even if he could afford to.

As arguments go, to claim that the Second Amendment was intended for the events and circumstances of 1791, then the Second Amendment should be intended for the events and circumstances of 2016. Instead, the call is to get rid of the right, because the people are so heavily brainwashed they can’t recognize their hypocrisy and ignorance. It’s difficult to blame the people. To some degree, they just don’t know what they are doing and saying – by design. Come out of the whore, the Bible tells us.

Because we refuse to review and study real history, the failure becomes exacerbated through the devising of such ridiculous conclusions that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to only the ownership of a rifle or pistol. History and the words of those founders of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, show us the reasoning behind and the necessity of a Second Amendment. The short of it was that the Second Amendment was, “necessary to the security of a free State,” and to protect us from the tyrannies of a centralized government.

If you have belief in the U.S. Constitution, then you should recognize that the writers did NOT give themselves all the power and control the U.S. Government of today has. The Founders clearly stated that the necessity of the Second Amendment was to protect the citizenry from the government – not necessarily the government of other countries but our very own U.S. Government. Thus, with the advent of sinister applications of propaganda and the subsequent usurpation of education by those intent on propagandizing the masses for sinister reasons, we see a complete change in the need to keep and bear arms as protection from our government, to a calling upon government for protection. Do we not recognize or understand this change? Evidently not. There is little reason to think we no longer need protection from our own government, and yet, many, especially gun haters, sincerely are convinced the United States Government would not harm its citizenry, therefore there should no longer be a need for a Second Amendment.

I might ask the same questions as Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

Often discussed with Second Amendment issues is the infringement upon the kinds of “arms” this government allows its subjects to possess. Embedded fear, through propaganda and education/brainwashing, creates unreasonable and unrealistic perceptions of what a citizen might do with a cannon but because of misled trustworthiness, considers it proper in the hands of government. Historians probably remember there was considerable debate about whether this country would have a standing army in time of peace. Noah Webster told us that before a “standing army” can rule, the citizenry must be disarmed. It was fresh in the minds of colonialists the power of tyrannical governments. Many were opposed to the government having an army. And why? They understood the dangers of standing armies and ill-thinking politicians and power hungry perverts.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides for Congress to “raise and support Armies,” but were restricted to the funding of such armies to not more than two years.

With the power of Congress to raise and support Armies, the argument then can be made that in order for a free American, of self-determination, to limit the threat of government tyranny over himself, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be limited by the government. The only reason a government would place those limitations on its people is to ensure that the people can never have anything near the right to keep and bear arms as the government does, under the guise of national defense. Therefore, the intent of the Second Amendment becomes ineffectual. Our belief that our self-possessed armament is truly a deterrent to tyranny is dishonest. Slavery is but one act of Congress or that of a tyrant, away.

If the Second Amendment, determined to be a right of the people by the U.S. Supreme Court, and, as the right claims, the purpose of the Second Amendment is “necessary to the security of a free state,” to protect the people from the tyrannies of too powerful governments, why then do we allow the government to limit our Second Amendment rights?

Do you really trust government that much? I certainly have a lot more trust in my neighbor than I do this, or any other, centralized government.

With disinformation and misinformation, combined with outright lies, embedded into American’s minds, not only do we fear that any fellow citizen should have the right to own automatic weapons, grenades and rocket launchers, our ignorance and lack of ability to think and reason, places all of us at a greater risk of that fear of a despotic government and slavery. We just cannot and will not see that.

Consider the many who buy into the concept that a well-armed military, including a large, modern army with high-tech weapons and mass-killing weapons is a deterrent to foreign invasions, or of war, by tyrannical governments. And yet, these same would not even consider that same rhetoric to apply to the need and purpose for a citizenry to be armed well enough to at least put the fear of God into a group of corrupt politicians to remind them it might not be so easy to place Americans into governmental servitude.

I doubt that few can see or understand my thoughts and reasoning. I never expected that they would. Instead of people asking the right questions, like why do we allow government and hate-filled groups to infringe upon the Second Amendment, directly destroying the only real protection we have against tyrannical government and preserving all other rights, they allow their fear, bred from brainwashing, to warp their thinking that arms in the hands of a lawful citizenry is more dangerous than in the hands of a government – a government known to have murdered and killed millions of people during the span of its history, little, if any of it, justified.

We, as a society, blind to the propaganda and products of the brainwashing, trust government over our neighbors. It’s just unbelievable! Even though recent polling, another propaganda tool, shows that less than 10% of Americans trust their government and Congress, we still are of the mindset that unlimited arms in the hands of corrupt government is better placed than in the hands of a people – a people once believing that they were the government and keeping and bearing arms guaranteed their protection from government.

Hasn’t the brainwashing worked marvelously?



Second Amendment is Considered “Infringable” by Most

ShallNotBeInfringedPeople should ask why it is that the Second Amendment is fair game for infringement – “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

I have often said that if an honest person is interested in protecting constitutional rights, more than likely they will find themselves among strange company. A right is a right….isn’t it?

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And yet, this nation has spent billions of dollars infringing on this right and billions of dollars protecting other rights. I personally know of no organization, that sucks millions of dollars out of the population for their cause, that practices in the protection of the Second Amendment without infringements. Why?

The Second Amendment seems front and center, one more time and one more time we read and hear from the Press and other anti-Second Amendment tyrants, about masses of American citizens eager to expand background checks in order that any person can exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Background checks is registration of guns. People kid themselves, much because they choose to have faith in this corrupt government and believe that when the U.S. Government carries out a background check, information about the person being checked, for gun purchase, is not shared…but it is stored. Therefore, it is a gun registration act. While the check may not contain the information about the gun, it does record that an individual purchased a gun. It will also track, each and every time a person buys a gun.

When argument is made that the requirement of a background check infringes upon a person’s constitutional right, this is most often rebutted by people who state that a background check does not prohibit a person from buying and owning a gun. While not completely true in making such a statement, what is never discussed is that it is not written and surely was not the intent of the Bill of Rights, that a person had to register with the state in order to be able to exercise a constitutional right. Doing so would be an utterly ridiculous idea. Wouldn’t it? Do we have to register to deliver a speech? Would you deem it acceptable to have to get a license to make sure your home isn’t unlawfully entered and searched by government? Would you find it okay to get a license to attend the church of your choice?

I repeat: Government requiring a background check is gun registration. It is at its simplest form an onus placed on the individual, in what must be done in order to exercise a right. That in and of itself can be argued as unconstitutional. This also applies to the act to get licensed/registered to carry a concealed weapon. Disguised as something promoting safety, the registration becomes necessary in order to exercise your Second Amendment right.

Michael Bloomberg, and his little fascists, have invaded the State of Maine, in order to get a referendum placed on a ballot that would implement a draconian law that would require background checks on any and all gun sales and transfers. It’s so absurd that being in someone’s house, let’s say while they were away on vacation, and the house had a gun(s) in it. Both the owner and you would be guilty of failing to get a background check before the “transfer” was made. Yeah, it’s ridiculous.

Background checks is another example of gun registration. Some argue that it will lead to gun registration. They fail to see that it already is a form of gun registration. What happens now when you go buy a new gun? It’s being registered. What happens now if you purchase ammunition and use your credit or debit card? You’ve just “registered” yourself as buying ammunition, which is necessary in order to fully exercise your Second Amendment right.

Yesterday, I spent a great deal of time reading and researching about this unconstitutional act to INFRINGE upon the rights of others. In my reading, I saw references made to Supreme Court rulings about the unconstitutionality of requiring some form of registration in order to exercise a right.

In Thomas v. Collins, 1945, Thomas traveled to Texas to deliver a speech before a group of people lawfully assembled to learn about forming a union. His duty was that only of speaking. Local officials presented Thomas with a restraining order that prohibited him to attend this function and deliver his speech. After consulting his attorney he went ahead and made his speech  but was charged with breaking the law because he did not obtain the proper “licenses” to recruit people to a union. The case found it’s way to the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Rutledge. The appeal was based on what was believed to be an infringement upon his First Amendment Right of free speech. Justice Rutledge in part stated: “The restraint is not small when it is considered what was restrained. The right is a national right, federally guaranteed. There is some modicum of freedom of thought, speech and assembly which all citizens of the Republic may exercise throughout its length and breadth, which no State, nor all together, nor the Nation itself, can prohibit, restrain or impede. If the restraint were smaller than it is, it is from petty tyrannies that large ones take root and grow. This fact can be no more plain than when they are imposed on the most basic rights of all. Seedlings planted in that soil grow great and, growing, break down the foundations of liberty.”

The SCOTUS determined that it was unlawful to limit, through registration, freedom of speech in this case. The local regulations required those who assembled and conducted union forming business, obtain permits to do so. They did. It was believed that because Thomas was to speak to the assembled group, he could have his First Amendment rights restricted because he didn’t obtain a permit first.

You also cannot restrict a constitutional right based on what might happen. Can you?

We see a similar restriction of the First Amendment in Lamont v. Postmaster General, 1965. In this case, before the SCOTUS, the challenge came as the result of a postal requirement (law) that the post office would not deliver certain “unsealed” mail unless the recipient first “registered” to receive this mail. This was ruled by the court as a First Amendment infringement because it required a “registration” in order to exercise one’s First Amendment.

In Justice Douglas’ majority opinion, he states: “We conclude that the Act [the requirement to register in order to receive perceived unwanted mail] as construed and applied is unconstitutional because it requires an official act (viz., returning the reply card) as a limitation on the unfettered exercise of the addressee’s First Amendment rights.”

Something so simple as this and yet the Courts will seemingly go out of their way to protect at least the First Amendment while stripping the Second Amendment to shreds.

If readers can see beyond the end of their noses, they might find the third case an interesting one and an example of how any kind of gun registration can be self-incriminating (Fifth Amendment).

In Haynes v. United States, 1968, Haynes was charged with the violation of 26 U.S.C. 5851(part of the National Firearms Act) because he failed to register a weapon the state had determined to be undesirable, and wanting registration of such a weapon for the purpose of taxation. Haynes contended that the requirement to register his gun would violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The majority opinion in this case, while having some issues with the National Firearms Act, found that: “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.”

The SCOTUS ruled that the requirement to register a firearm, the act of which would incriminate the registrant, was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

All of these cases are complicated and full of extenuating circumstances. However, the broader issue here is the effort of the Courts to protect certain constitutional rights while infringing on others, namely the Second Amendment.

It would therefore seem to me, that background checks, being a form of registration, is forcing people to undergo a registration in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. According to these cases, and the context to which those decisions by the Supreme Court were made, makes gun registration unlawful.

Consider the context of the rulings. Simple events like registering with local authorities before delivering a speech, or returning a simple postal card letting the service know whether you wanted to receive questionable materials, where consider such grave infringements, they were done away with in order to protect First Amendment rights.

In the third case, we see where, because of ill-written guns laws, even though a gun may be in a person’s possession without being registered, the protection of the Fifth Amendment and a person’s protective right against self-incrimination, that right being more important than the registration of a gun.

Then why is it that we allow the continued infringements on the Second Amendment? Every time you and I or your neighbor, or the NRA or anybody else says, reasonable restrictions on buying and owning guns are necessary and responsible, we cannot see that these actions are an infringement and therefore is a destruction of the right.

We are not dealing with rational lawmakers and lawyers. Because of much complacency and a willingness of American’s to allow central government to infringe on our Second Amendment, current laws and policies that set precedence, in this day and age of corruption and total disregard of the constitution, become the rule of law. Although executive actions by a sitting president can be overturned, the precedent exists and therefore carries some kind of authority into the future.

We know the Press/Media/Journalists, etc. will fight tooth and nail to protect their First Amendment rights. They will use that right to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

It is, however, very clear that the Second Amendment is fair game for destruction. Those wishing to destroy it, offer no respect to those of us who find it extremely valuable – even to the value that it may be the last fortress that is protecting all the other rights.

I just wonder how these same mental midget, emotional Second Amendment destroyers will see things when their prized right is taken away from them? When it is, it will NOT be because I worked to destroy them.


Destroying Second Amendment: Create Problem, Force Reaction, Offer Solution

ProblemReactionSolutionOne of the problems with the National Rifle Association, as with far too many Americans, is they buckle to nonsensical calls for “reasonable” limitations to a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yes, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided that it was a constitutional right of an American to keep and bear arms. However, in Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, he let it be known that the Court’s decision did not prohibit “reasonable” Second Amendment restrictions.

McDonald v. Chicago, had similar results and yet, how free are D.C. and Chicago residents to practice this right to keep and bear arms?

With the only deterrent left in this country to ward off tyranny and dictatorship, the necessary goal for this achievement must be the disarming of the people. It has been systematically at work for a long, long time, albeit slow, it is happening. At the present pace, and the willingness of too many people to place limits on their rights, what then does the future hold for what’s left of American freedom?

Any and all Second Amendment protection groups will never be able to truly address the disarming of Americans until they are willing to understand who is behind it and how it is being done. As brainwashed people, we don’t want to believe that “…we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:12) (Global Power Structure)

The “principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness and spiritual wickedness in high places,” have a very simple formula for controlling people. These rulers have understood human nature for a very long time. They have made it their life’s work. They have understood for a very long time that, civilian gun ownership is a problem for world dominance and control. They also understand that they cannot simply bust in every door in America (yet) and take our guns. There has to be a way to do it in which, not only will people not recognize the effort, they will be eager to comply, to accelerate their own slavery, by believing what they think they are seeing, and heeding what they are told.

As I said, the formula is simple but difficult for blind people to see. First, the rulers create a problem. This is followed in a timely manner with getting the people to react emotionally to the problem. With emotions, especially fear, in place, the very same powers that created the problem, offer a solution.

Most people do not have much difficulty in accepting that there are people who act and react to frightening events in this country, because they believe the “problem” to be real. With fear firmly embedded, those with “solutions” go to work. These solutions are designed only to further the cause of disarmament.

The United States Government has never offered a “program” that was successful – meaning that it did not accomplish for the people what the Government told them it would do. It is successful, if only in tiny increments, to the ruling powers to achieve their long-term goals, i.e. disarmament.

All Government departments and programs are designed for failure and to ensure that the majority of citizens are always and forever dependent upon the same government.

What is most difficult for Americans to swallow, is any suggestion that our own government, the Shadow Government (Council on Foreign Relations) and all the members of the Global Power Structure, wanting us all disarmed, create the so-called “problem.”

When “problems” happen, like a cop shooting, school shooting, theater shooting and now even terrorist shootings, three entities go into action. On the one hand we have the brainwashed people, who have been conditioned to believe that any gun has the ability to kill at random. The mere presence of a gun scares the living daylight out of them. They are programmed to be scared and react accordingly. To go along conveniently with this programmed fear are groups, some of whom are useful idiots who believe what they have been told and will do anything to destroy their own liberties in the name of safety. Some of these groups are planned groups who work directly with the Global Power Structure to perpetuate the fear and the calling for “laws to be made.”

It matters not that laws already exist. These people are scared and are demanding SOMETHING to be done. This is when the Global Power Structure, who created the problem to begin with, steps in with another (final) solution. With each subsequent “problem,” and “reaction,” another “solution” is offered. There is no end to this.

Groups like the NRA, who claim to be defenders and supporters of the Second Amendment, do no such thing when they, not only go along with, but promote “reasonable” limits to the right to keep and bear arms.

Today I posted a link to an article telling of one South Carolina representative who is offering a bill that would require all “journalists” to have background checks and obtain a license to practice their First Amendment rights. Of course the point of the bill is to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the Media and others to take little regard at protecting a right to keep and bear arms, but who show their outrage at anyone suggesting messing with the First Amendment.

It no longer matters that any gun limitation laws will have zero effect on violent crime. Nobody wants to hear that criminals don’t obey laws. This is a product of years of mind control, through propaganda and brainwashing. Step by step, soon the country will be disarmed. The “rulers of darkness” and the “spiritual wickedness in high places,” will continue to create the problem, promote reactions, and then offer their solution. Failure to recognize this formula, will quickly result in the destruction of this nation. This formula is not endemic to only the disarmament of our country. It is at play within every aspect of politics, government and our private lives.

It is time for those who think they support the Second Amendment to step up and help expose the creators of the “problem.”




Historically Wolves Have Killed Man on Regular Basis

VargensEuropaDespite historic documents that show to the contrary, all too often defenders of large predators, particularly the wolf, go out of their way to deny facts in order that their prized wild dog goes without blame for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

There are even knee-jerk responses from wolf lovers to somehow justify the killing of a person by a wolf because the wolf may have had rabies or some other disease, dishonestly causing people to think this event somehow disqualifies the wolf as a killer. Perhaps it is the same demented notion people have about insanity, that it presents a justifiable cause to kill.

Regardless of how anyone chooses to look at killing, whether a wolf is healthy or sick, under the right circumstances, they will kill and kill repeatedly. This fact does not justify the wanton destruction of wolves, or other large predators. It does, however, call for responsible management and control. As much as some people loathe that man exists and thus interferes with their precious wolves, the same historic documents readily show that wolves, forced into man-settled landscapes, is a formula for disaster – for both man and wolf.

Recently I was reading the “Abstract” of a study about, “Predators that Kill Humans: Myth, Reality, Context and the Politics of Wolf Attacks on People,” John D.C. Linnell, Julien Alleau. The Abstract reads as follows:

Seventeen species of large mammalian carnivore have been documented to kill people, although of these only five or six seem to do it on a regular basis. Predatory attacks on humans are generally rare, which combined with very variable and inconsistent reporting makes it hard to identify the mechanisms and patterns explaining spatial and temporal variation in attacks. In contrast to other species, the extent of wolf attacks on people has been subject to intense controversy in recent decades. Competing myths have been advanced by advocates and opponents of wolves, and the issue has become politically intertwined with a diversity of social conflicts associated with the changing nature of rural life and wildlife conservation in general. Examination of both the historical record and recent reports provides a massive body of evidence that wolves have been involved in many cases of attacks on humans. Although many of these cases are linked with rabid wolves, there is also plenty of evidence of recurring cases of predatory attacks. Because these have been associated with a special set of environmental circumstances (absence of wild prey, heavily modified landscapes, high density of humans engaged in vulnerable activities) that are no longer present in most areas the risks of wolf attacks are currently very low in most of wolf distribution. An emerging situation in North America and Europe concerns the appearance of fearless and habituated wolves, which requires careful study to develop appropriate threat assessments, mitigation measures and reaction responses.

The key elements here to pay attention to are “historical records,” “recurring cases of …attacks,” and “a special set of environmental circumstances.” Denying any and all of these serves no purpose other than to influence public opinion that might run contrary to the agendas of those intent of having large predators in everyone’s back yard.

While it is one thing to deny historic documentation, working feverishly to enhance the “special set of environmental circumstances” will accelerate the onset of human/wolf attacks. It would be of an extremely perverse intention that anybody would want for killing of humans by wolves. But, we do live in extremely perverse times.

In Will Graves book, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages,” his travels and research to Russia provided clear documentation of the hundreds of thousands of attacks on man and property throughout Russian history.

Chapter 6 of Grave’s book reveals what seems an unending documentation of wolf attacks on humans. It becomes clear as you read the accounts that the number of attacks on humans is directly proportional to the wolf population. There are, of course, other environmental circumstances that influence this event. None of these circumstances should be ignored or denied.

Chapter 3 of “The Real Wolf,” co-author Ted B. Lyon writes:

“Save the Wolf” dogma indicates that wolves are not dangerous to humans, despite centuries of historical evidence to the contrary. This willingness to ignore historical records accompanies a propensity to rewrite the wolf’s history and habits, leaving people unprepared.

Centuries of historical evidence clearly and specifically recounts fatal wolf attacks. Wolves hunt in packs, thereby making them very dangerous to the relatively defenseless human. Unless wolves are routinely hunted, trapped, or shot at, they do not recognize or fear humans as the dominant species and instead view them as potential prey. Wolves are dangerous predators and should be viewed as such.

Once again, we are told not to ignore or deny historical evidence. Even if wolf attacks on humans are a “rare” event (this is a value-based adjective), educating oneself to the facts of wolf habits and those environmental circumstances that drive a wolf to want to attack and kill man, might, one day, save a life and that of a wolf.

In my own book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?,” beginning around page 18, I spend several pages dealing with wolf history, including world wide events of wolf attacks on humans. These attacks were a regular event and people had to learn how to deal with it or die. Often wolf advocates ridicule any occasion that might involve human fear of wild wolves. It is quite unfortunate because it sets an improper stage of learning how to deal with these animals. It’s easy to sit back and snicker, when you have never had to deal with an attacking wolf. Why is history so much denied?”

Throughout the First Chapter of, Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?, I shared parts of documents from written accounts of wolves and human encounters from many parts of the world. These accounts are fascinating and full of information all of us can learn from. But will we?

The other day, I received a document that comes from Page 130 of Kaj Granlund’s book, “Vargens Europa.” This book (no English translated version available yet) documents the wolf and its history – how wolves for thousands of years have terrorized the world’s rural populations.

Please find a pdf of Page 130 here.

This document shows nearly 180 confirmed human deaths, caused by wolves, in Finland from 1710 – 1881. What is also remarkable in this document is how it shows that once wolves attack and kill one person, it is followed by more attacks. The author told me, “It is obvious from the table that when a wolf (pack) discovers humans as potential prey, it turns focus on humans instead of traditional pray.”

It is also important to point out some of the “environmental circumstances” surrounding this table. From the “Abstract” above, we are told that within each region where wolves exist, circumstances drive the habits of wolves. Readers of this website should, by now, have a pretty good understanding about how to recognize many of those circumstances by reading Dr. Valerius Geist’s, “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?

Author Granlund writes in an email to me, “You have to know a bit about our history to understand variations. In fact the only thing we know is that these people were killed by wolves. We don’t know how many others were killed as the resident registration was kept by the local vicars. The vicars only registered important events as marriages, births and deaths. Births were registered on the parent’s, not on the born child.

If the body was found the vicar wrote in his diary name, date when killed, age and COD. If someone simply disappears in the forest nothing was written in the books. They knew the different diseases. If someone was attached by rabid wolves and he/she was infected then the COD would have been “wolf + rabies”. If a rabid wolf simply kills its victim and escapes, the COD would probably be “killed by wolf”.

There are some events in our history that needs some attention. During the Great Northern War (1700 – 1721) many events were never recognized because whole families disappeared from their homes without notice. Some were simply killed, others taken as slaves and brought to Russia.

After 1809 Finland was ruled by the Russian emperor (tsar). The welfare began to rise and the statistics were more accurate. Several events affected human-wolf relationship during 1860’s and after. Without digging too deep into history, one law that came into force was the dog licence fee (read tax). There was an annual fee on each dog which rapidly reduced the number of guarding dogs thus making it easier for wolves to roam without notice in inhabited areas.

The wolves were practically exterminated by Russian wolf hunters in the 1880’s and the wolf attacks came to an end.

As I have said, it is easy to lay claim that wolves don’t attack people, when one’s sphere of reality is limited to local surroundings and never having to encounter of deal with wolves. With self-imposed limitations of wolf history, how can anyone be expected to responsibly deal with the reality of wolves?

At the most elemental level of understanding, if wolf populations continue to rise in the United States and spread throughout greater geographical regions, it only stands to reason that the envelope of certain attacks will also increase.

Use some logical understanding and reason. We know that in places where many wolves roam and few people live, accounts of wolf attacks is quite rare. What then happens if many wolves are forced into man-inhabited areas?

If one was to honestly evaluate all the possible environmental circumstances that can and will drive a wolf, or any large predator, including an increase in numbers of wolves and numbers of humans, it makes little sense to deliberately increase the chances that someone is going to get killed.

Stop ignoring history. Examine the evidence. Understand the variables that changes habits of wolves and large predators. Let people live in peace.


Obama Cries Over Violence, Americans Should Cry Over Lost Freedom

CrierInChiefWhile President Barack Obama sobs like a baby over dead children in Sandy Hook, it’s unfortunate he doesn’t have the same feelings each and every time a child dies in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, etc. He robs Americans of their rights, including the right to choose, forcing his subjects to have even more faith and trust in his government. And if his sincere concern is over senseless violence and killings, why doesn’t he give lip service to addressing that crime, by enforcing existing laws, in order to save lives?

There must be something wrong with a man’s mind, that would find ANY reason to trust man-government.

Such is the constitution of Obama’s newest exercise in Fascism as he attempts to convince people that strengthening background checks and intruding into the lives and privacy of senior citizens is going to make anybody safer.

Oh, yes. I’ll expect that there will be those who will demonize me because somehow, in their pea brains, they think I am opposed to keeping destructive weapons out of the hands of those most dangerous to wield them. Because of their ignorance and blind willingness to trust in their mAN-gOD-gOVERNMENT, the brainwashing leaves them no alternative than to exclaim only what they have been forced to believe. I oppose measures that claim to address gun violence, when in fact, Obama’s Executive Order may make matters worse AND it ONLY further degrades the rights of Americans. How is this helpful?

The idea that guns and the freedom to own them – the only assurance man might have left to ward off tyrannical rule; rule so exemplified in this administration, as well as past ones – is somehow causing more violence is insanity because it is an unproven claim – a claim made by tyrants. Data confirms the opposite. But that will never stop the totalitarians bent on their own self-destruction, their own eagerness to give their all to their gOD-gOVERNMENT, casting their freedoms into the cesspools of political crime and hatred.

An examination of Obama’s Executive Order to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer, shows what, on the surface, there are sensible cries to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Only an idiot would read this call to Fascism and think it is going to accomplish anything the title says it will.

Who can resist calls to take “steps to address these horrible tragedies.” So, why don’t we? Why do we never address what causes bad people to do bad things? Why don’t we address violence in movies, music and video games. Why don’t we address the results of a progressive, liberal/leftist lifestyle rooted in immorality? To be so ignorant to think a person can become radicalized by visiting Online websites and not be radicalized by mesmerizing, brain-twisting American music, movies and video games is shameful idiocy.

But American Society hasn’t, particularly in recent years, been much interested in actually finding moral cures to immoral lifestyles. We are more interested in creating fake cures that assist us in releasing guilt we acquire from willingly participating in perverted, violent, decedent and careless lifestyles. Make a new law and it makes us feel better. But then we don’t.

Surely there are more things that kill us than guns. The math must show that there are probably more lives saved due to the existence of guns, than are lost. But that doesn’t matter. We have been programmed to think otherwise – guns kill people…period!

Odd, isn’t it, that most of us can watch a movie, play a video game, or watch our children play a video game that has guns and violence, and we are desensitized to it. It is, after all, a game. Mention a gun anywhere else in society and people freak out. This is planned mind manipulation through propaganda. We create false “gun free zones” and yet allow our children to enter the artificial world of digital violence, turning them into techno-zombies, somehow convinced it is benign.

The “wrong” people should not have guns because those “wrong” people do not value life. The “wrong” people should not drive cars, fly airplanes, have children, marry or be around those of the opposite sex. Why then, do we and this president, think that somehow, in any rational way, men can decide who qualifies and who doesn’t when it comes to guns. It’s always the damned guns!

Look at the Executive Order. Examine it for what it says and doesn’t say. Forget what you HOPE Obama’s idealism will accomplish. Examination should tell us that the entire concept of Obama’s vision to “reduce gun violence and make communities safer” is for us to trust him, his administration, Congress and some random man-gods who will be given the power to label whomever they choose as being undesirable to own and/or buy a gun. Man-gods will determine who is insane and who isn’t. The world is insane!

Some will call me paranoid or scared, perhaps insane, but please, somebody show me why, with the history of man-governments, you and I should trust anything they will do. Historically, what has happened to millions of dead people who trusted their governments – trusting them to disarm the “right” wrong people?

In Germany, based on propagandized fear, the government approached disarmament of the citizenry the same way. How did that turn out? This action is not endemic to only Germany. And, Obama and the rest of you totalitarians think I should trust government? Who’s insane?

When Germany began to create gun laws that would give power to somebody to decide who should and shouldn’t have a gun, examination of the history and facts show us the governmental abuse that occurred, when fine citizens had their rights taken away from them because the existing government saw anyone opposed to, or spoke out against them, as being “undesirables” and shouldn’t own a gun. They all were killed!

It matters not whether you want to think or accept the possibility that abuses will happen, the structure for the possibility now exists in this executive order. All it takes is one bad apple. Just like those few bad people who shouldn’t own guns, there are bad people who shouldn’t be placed in position of authority over other people.

This executive order will not reduce gun violence. This executive order will not make our communities safer. It may, possibly, make things worse. As a society, until we address the real causes of an immoral people, things will only continue to spiral downward.

I would like to see less gun violence. I would like to see less vehicular violence, less movie violence, less video game violence, less sporting event violence, etc. Making laws to take away man’s rights will not cure that problem, nor will executive orders exclaimed to be able to stop or reduce gun violence.

Obama, in his crying speech, said that people have a right to go to a movie or go to church – where gun violence has occurred – and that the Second Amendment shouldn’t have more rights than freedom of speech or religion. And yet, he obviously is a hypocrite because he has shown that it is okay to limit the right of one freedom over another, so long as it’s the one of his choice. Nonsense! Who’s insane?

His brain is so messed up to think that anybody going into a movie theater or a church to kill people, is exercising their Second Amendment right. They are criminals, of which there already exists laws to deal with that. How does it make it right that some Americans should have their right to keep and bear arms limited believing that right is bigger than any other, while making the others bigger? Using Obama’s logic, then why, if the gun lobby is so powerful and full of lies, as he claims, are they not lobbying to restrict where people can go to worship or watch a movie. Who’s insane?

I’m tired of never addressing the real cause of violence. This criminal president, his administration and all of Congress should stop restricting my choices to live free and safe while doing nothing to stop the root cause of violence and addressing crime with criminal laws that already exist.

Perhaps when a government continually exercises violence on its own people, and people around the globe, it fails to recognize the calamity of violence all around them. Crocodile tears will affect the children and those who are incapable of independent thought, while the rest of us watch the onset of greater, deep-rooted fascism.


Gun Laws: Creeping Toward Fascist Rule

FascesPresident Barack H. Obama is presently meeting with his legal advisers to examine how he can “legally” erode the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms, through Executive Action. Because of a listless society and a corrupt Congress, providing for presidents, current and past, to write laws via a method of bypassing Congress, we are headed toward dictatorial, fascist rule…inch by inch. Historically, this has happened before. We live in dangerous times, with many reasons to fear, such usurpation is on our doorstep.

While it may be already too late, a first step necessary to stop the bleeding is to recognize where the blood is coming from and how the injury happened.

Here is a brief examination of one example of how it happened and a comparative look at what’s happening today. Perhaps it’s time to stop denying truth and Wake Up, America!

wake up america

There is real danger in America’s bent to make everything politically correct. The term itself, political correctness, is representative of American culture today in that we find misleading or poor representative terms and phrases to give something title instead of calling it what it is. In this case, political correctness is nothing more than censorship. To the intelligent, censorship is a loss of our right to free speech.

Censorship, is a taking away of the rights of free men. All laws are, to some degree, the taking away of the rights of free men. We have been taught to believe that all laws are proper and necessary for the protection of a free society. This is an oxymoron of epic proportions – a disease with seemingly no cure. We see it in several parts of our political and societal existence – believing we are creating a cure for a problem only to discover the created cure exacerbates the problem.

Political Correctness has more far-reaching dangers than most realize. In a post-normal society, like that of the United States, history is being repeated, not only because it is not being taught, or not being taught honestly, but it cannot be taught accurately because history has been hijacked, the end result, some of which is, political correctness.

The censorship of free speech, i.e. political correctness, forces all of us to teach half-truths in history, while often failing to address the root causes of prominent social, economic and political issues. Therefore, there is no learning process because history is watered down, while sinister processes ensure no discussion of truthful matters perpetuates the valuable lessons that should be learned from historic events. Perhaps none is more evident than modern speech and censorship when attempting to discuss the results of fascist rule of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. The most prominent of political correctness can be seen whenever anyone attempts to make any kind of correlation with current events and those of Hitler. Even if some of us have learned from history, isn’t the censorship a tool to cover up the horrors of fascist rule? Perhaps the censorship in this instance is a planned event. I happen to think it is. For those seeking ultimate power and control over all people and resources, nothing would be more detrimental to that agenda than bringing to review the actual historic accounts of repressive, murderous regimes like Hitler’s.

Before Hitler gained power in Germany, certain events took place that laid the groundwork for, not only the elevation of the Hitler regime to political prominence, but what was to take place after that power was ceded away from the socialist-democratic government of Germany.

Nearly every American is willing to cede his/her rights because they have been bred to believe it is necessary for safety, the rule of law and national security, while at the same time willing to blindly follow their government, wishing never to believe their government would ever resort to Fascism and/or dictatorial reign. By giving away those rights, it places the control of that part of you into the hands of a centralized government. History should have taught us that the bigger and stronger a centralized government becomes, the smaller our freedoms and liberties become. Yet, we follow the wrong path.

As such, a majority of Americans are convinced that something called “reasonable gun control laws” are necessary for various reasons and something that fits into a progressive society. Such benign behavior has resulted in the murder of millions of people throughout the world.

We must, therefore, compare and correlate what led up to the takeover of the Hitler Regime in Germany and events taking place in America today. The comparisons are so similar, one would have to question whether or not the same evil that brought about the disarming of Germany and the Holocaust is in play in the United States today. In history we read such things that took place in Germany in the early 1900s that clearly set the stage for Hitler’s fascist rule. These events read as current events in the U.S.

Prior to the Hitler Regime, Germany consisted of independent states, with the liberty to create their own laws, similar to the way the U.S. once was. History reveals that many of these states would begin campaigns to disarm feared political opponents and those who might threaten the existing governments. This fear was of a “communist” take over perpetuated by those with political influence. This eventually led to laws aimed at disarming the citizenry.

It seemed that in Germany, a country that once allowed for the private possession of weapons, not that much unlike those of the United States, a new regime of social democrats began an effort to limit the right to keep and bear arms, based on the fear that communists, who might be able to buy and possess arms, would become a threat to the ruling party. History should have taught us that a fearful society is a society ripe for the picking.

Even prior to the 1928 enactment of the Weimar Republic, the chaos that existed in Germany led to the passage of  “the Verordnung des Rates der Volksbeauftragen über Waffenbesitz (Regulations of the Council of the People’s Delegates on Weapons Possession). This gun control law demanded the immediate surrender to the central government of all weapons and ammunition. Failure to do so would lead to imprisonment.

This law passed because of the fear generated that another war might start if guns and ammunition were not controlled. This law was later repealed and replaced with different gun laws that, on the surface, appeared more benign, but would ultimately lead to the easy pickings by a fascist regime.

These draconian gun laws were responsible for the onset of semi-governmental groups of thugs and those who took it upon themselves to be the enforcers of new gun regulations. Unfortunately, at least one of these groups was the foundation of the move in Germany to National Socialism.

In 1920, the Law on the Disarmament of the People passed. This law gave a Reichskommissar the authority to decided which guns were “military” in style – perhaps better understood by Americans to define an “assault weapon,” – and who could and could not buy or possess.

By 1928 and the rule of the Weimar Republic, it was decided to pass a “comprehensive” gun law – Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law required a license for anyone interested in making, assembling or repairing guns and ammunition and the sale thereof. In addition, the same law prohibited any selling of arms and ammo at fairs, shooting competitions or related events.

Anyone wishing to own a weapon, now had to apply for a license. Those wishing to carry a firearm, had to obtain another license. All of these regulations certainly should be familiar to most Americans. If they don’t already exist, totalitarians continue to demand exactly what the German national socialists were demanding.

But the laws didn’t stop at licensing. Authority was given to the Reichskommissar to make sure that a license was given only to “persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.” (Background checks to show you are not listed on some fake “domestic terror watchlist,” had psychiatric treatment or some other “condition” left up to the discretion of a man or panel of men.) In certain cases of undesirable classes of people, a right to own and/or carry a gun was automatically denied.

If you were legally licensed, there were limits as to how many guns and how much ammunition you could have on hand. These limitations varied depending upon what the “proving a need” involved. Hunting provided guns of certain types different than target shooters. Hunters had to buy a license to hunt and that license provided further gun and ammunition regulations that were strictly enforced. And remember, these licenses were issued to only those the government deemed completely trustworthy and were not known to be in opposition to the central government, later the Nazis.

Eventually, it became illegal to manufacture any weapon that could be, “rapid disassembly beyond the generally usual extent for hunting and sporting purposes.” (more assault weapons to be banned)

Prison terms were established for violation of these laws, including laws that required immediate notification to authorities in the event that someone inherited a gun or ammunition.

The Reichskommissar at the time, Kuenzer, in an explanation of the need to implement the new gun regulations, explains: “The law necessitated long consultations in the Reichsrat [legislative assembly] because it interferes strongly with the police authority of the Länder [states].”

Included in this “comprehensive” gun law, was the prohibition of individual states to make any gun laws on their own. All states were now subject to the wishes and whims of gun control of the central government.

Reichskommissar Kuenzer explained the reason it was necessary to implement a “comprehensive” (reasonable) gun law: “The purpose and goal of the law at hand are to get firearms that have done so much damage from the hands of unauthorized persons and to do away with the instability and ambiguity of the law that previously existed in this area. The difficult task was to find the appropriate limits between this necessity of the state on the one hand and the important interests of the weapons industry that was employing a large number of workers and had been heavily damaged through the peace treaty, the interests of the legal sporting industry, and the personal freedom of the individual.”

Now that gun manufacturing was completely controlled by the central government, all guns manufactured commercially had to be stamped with the name of the company that made it, or sold it; “in the interest of solving criminal acts committed with firearms.” 

All of these “reasonable” gun regulations should sound very familiar to Americans. We have listened to the demands of totalitarians for more gun control, while voicing all the same claims as those in Germany 100 years ago. Germans, after World War I, lived in fear and chaos, much because the government and other political factions, pounded the fear of communism into the people’s brains. Eventually they believed that it was necessary to give up their rights if it would protect them from the communists.

In America today, we have our government pounding into our heads fear of terrorism from “radicalized Muslims,” and other events like mass shootings. Now that terror attacks, by “radical Muslims” have occurred in this country, the centralized government is demanding more gun restrictions, convincing more and more people that with stricter laws, terrorists will not be able to inflict harm on the people. It seems that this was the same reasoning that Reichskommissar Kuenzer used in his explanation to the German people.

The above historic synopsis of German gun rights, all happened BEFORE the Hitler Regime took control. There is no doubt these actions set the stage for fascist rule.

We know some of what Hitler did. We know that he completed the gun grab, taking all guns away from anybody he did not want to have them. It should be noted that Hitler, shortly after taking power, basically suspended the German Constitution and gave himself the authority to write and implement laws, without the authority or approval of the Reichsrat.

Examination of the events in the United States reveals that the U.S. Constitution has, for the most part, been suspended. Many laws are written by Congress and signed by the president that do not conform to the constitution. In addition, all actions, whether legal or not, carried out without opposition, sets precedent and therefore becomes law by default. This same shameful act happens in the Courts. With each administration “policy” is established. Once again, history, unlearned, reveals that “policy” becomes the law of the land by unchallenged precedent.

When Hitler first came to office, he worked with his administration and departments, to implement his Third Reich ideology. As we have learned, eventually he was given the power to write any laws he wanted. In America today, we now see the growing, illegal act of presidents writing their own laws through “executive actions.” The longer this goes unchallenged, the more Americans run the risk of dictatorial rule as we saw with Hitler.

Over 100 years ago, people didn’t believe anyone or any government as dark and sinister as the Hitler Regime could attain power into any country. Even when Hitler was carrying out his genocide, Americans, and much of the rest of the world denied it was happening. Where did that denial lead us?

Today, we live with the same denials. We go about our business believing that any gun laws are mostly benign and that any “reasonable” gun laws are done for the safety of the people and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists. History proves this never happens. History proves that disarming the people, leads to Fascism.

Political Correctness results in efforts to prohibit free speech about Hitler and the most effort goes into finding ways to block any discussions that make comparisons of Hitler with anyone or anything in America today. The denial and repression of truth will lead to death.



Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align With Science Say Researchers

wolfutah“Science:” – “Science is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe wolves.” This, with the exception of the lined-out word “universe,” and the added word “wolves,” is found on Wikipedia – that information website that Truth Seekers despise. It amazes me how such a word has been manipulated to mean just about everything except provide for a viable explanation of the real scientific process, which hopefully yields truth in the end. In essence, few people know the difference between scientific process and “science.” The bastardization of science is the result of some who understand this concept and exploit if for personal, political and financial gain.

An example of this might be when someone reads a “study” or a “theory” or a “proposal,” in their mind such becomes “science,” even when the real scientific process is unused, because they have been taught to react in this manner. It’s a dangerous proposition and has yielded great success for those seeking to promote personal agendas. At the same time it is destroying real, normal scientific processes.

I manipulated the title of an article I was reading that was sent to me via email, called “Carnivore Hunting Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers“. My title therefore reads, “Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers.”

In reading the article we find statements like: “policies regulating the hunting of large carnivores do not always align with basic scientific data;” “current harvest levels for…population of gray wolves…have led to decreased survival and reproduction, smaller packs, social disruption and a reversal from population growth to decline.”

This, of course, is concluded because the hand-picked “researchers” – birds of a feather flock together – all agree that there should be many wild carnivores in everyone’s back yard, with some to spare. Never mentioned in the article is anything to do with what each region, i.e. state regulators, wildlife managers, agricultural officials, private land owners, etc. desires for populations of wolves. Because these “researchers” want more wolves and have participated in “creating new science” about wolves and large carnivores, while ignoring all other facts and historic data about them, they call it “Science” and wield their generic terminology as though it was their bill of rights for themselves and their large carnivores. They pick the “science” and then demand management of all wildlife to fit into the new paradigm of large carnivore protection, i.e. scarcity of game hunting animals.

Take as an example the historic data that can be gleaned from stacks of books and journals from explorers and trappers. Any truthful researcher worth anything, knows that wolves in the Northern Rockies during the period when it was first opened, were quite scarce. “Quite scarce” is a comparative term, loaded to the hilt with personal, perspective value, that should be used when measured against what the large carnivore “researchers” and animal protectionists propagandize to the world about protecting large carnivores. THEIR “science” can be clearly determined by reading this one article alone, provided you understand that the measuring stick for predator populations was devised in their own factory.

This collective group is attempting to convince readers that all carnivore – wolf included – management schemes should be designed for population GROWTH. Decline, to them is a nasty word.

Simply because, for whatever the reasons, their “science” is conveniently telling them the populations of wolves in some areas are dropping, this is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing? Whether it’s good, bad or doesn’t matter, is based upon someone’s or a group of someone’s idealistic notion of their conjured up science. It is weighed heavily in personal value and romance biology. This is not hard, scientific truth. It’s all about idealism, which has no place at all in the real scientific process.

So, it becomes quite easy to toss around the term science as though it is the holy grail. Science is a general term that is most always misused. “Science suggests,” and “Science tells us,” as well as “Best Available Science,” are all used conveniently for one purpose and one purpose only – manipulation of public opinion. Upon examination of the truthful, scientific process, science is what the truthful, scientific process tells us it is, and nothing more. Who would dare question, “An international group of carnivore biologists,” when they say hunting of large carnivores doesn’t line up with science? But we should all question this statement once we understand their suggestive science is a tool of political and public opinion manipulation.

One of the “researchers” had this to say: “The North American model of wildlife management works very well for species like ducks or elk, but becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters. The management agencies involved have a difficult task, but current data suggest that more attention to the consequences of hunting large carnivores is warranted.”

To understand this completely, a reader has to know that this is opinion based on the idea that man is supposed to “co-exist” with large carnivores, while large carnivore populations are grown everywhere, even if the diet of the large carnivores happens to be human flesh or livestock. These “researchers” have taken it upon themselves to be the knights of the round table pertaining to everything carnivore, and it seems to now have spread over to attempting to exert their self-ordained authority on the rest of the world and how they manage wildlife. In their minds, and with their “science,” a reduction of any amount, for any large carnivore species, is bad, regardless. To hell with the presence of man.

The North American model of wildlife management works because of one simple and yet very powerful element that exists and has always been recognized within the model – MAN. Yup, shocking isn’t it. Man is the dominant species, the real apex predator. You can’t change that without the destruction and/or the elimination of human populations. When man realized uncontrolled hunting, trapping and fishing, with a growing population of people, was not sustainable, the Model was developed, not so that large carnivores could be protected, that would dominate the landscape, putting people at risk and contributing to scarcity among many other negative things. No, it was crafted FOR MAN as a means of perpetuating wildlife, including game species, as a resource for man…PERIOD. Get over it.

Because New Science scientists want to change the way wildlife management is discussed and carried out to suit their personal and political agendas, they first had to make up their “science” that suggests, hunting and utilizing a natural resource is unnecessary and runs contrary to “modern science.” With that firmly in their grasp, then they can go about writing articles like this one, attempting to convince people that hunting causes the eradication of species, when in fact, it does just the opposite. While perhaps not a perfect model, it certainly has sustained hunting, trapping and fishing for millions of people, for many decades, while at the same time, has grown and provided wildlife species to numbers never before seen in this country. Wildlife Watching was never a business until recently. Don’t be fooled into thinking watchable wildlife comes from predator protection.

The word “science” may be tossed around as a way to deceive people but historic fact is difficult to refute. The article in reference states that the North American Model, “becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters.” The only ones who find complexity in this long-proven model of wildlife management are those that want to protect all large carnivores, even at the expense of man predators. To hunters, there’s nothing complex about it at all. Man is a predator that cannot and should not be removed from the scientific process of wildlife management. Man doesn’t want other predators robbing them of a valuable resource. It’s insanity to think otherwise. That’s why we walk upright and animals don’t.


Dr. Charles Kay: “Isle Royale Conditions Are Not Applicable Any Place Else in North America”

*Editor’s Note* – The following article from “The Outdoorsman” Bulletin Number 60, June-November 2015, is republished here with permission. Please respect the copyright of this work. If you would like to ensure that The Outdoors remains in circulation, please donate to the cause. It is extremely worthwhile. Please click on The Outdoorsman “Subscribe” button to the right of this screen. Thank you.

Dr. Charles Kay: “Isle Royale Conditions Are Not Applicable Any Place Else in North America”

By George Dovel

In 2009, following an ongoing 2008 celebration of 50 consecutive years of wolf-moose research on Isle Royale, Research Leader Rolf Peterson warned that the island’s record low estimate of 500 moose could not provide enough sustained food for the 24 wolves they had counted. He predicted the wolf population could become extinct.

His prediction was based on basic facts from his research, which began as a graduate student in 1970 when there were 1,045 moose to feed only 18 wolves. That was nearly twice as many moose as the 30-moose-per-wolf that researchers had learned were required to feed them on a sustained basis.

But as inevitably happens when there is abundant prey and a healthy wolf population, the wolves rapidly expanded at a rate which far exceeded the reproductive rate of the moose. However that was not the only factor causing a rapid decline in the moose-to-wolf-ratio.

During Several Severe Winters, Deep Snow Trapped the Prey Species – Allowing the Wolves to Kill up to 3X the Prey They Killed during Normal Winters

In a 1985 article titled, “How Delicate is the Balance of Nature?” *, L. David Mech described how two decades of studying wolves in Michigan’s Isle Royale and in Northern Minnesota had taught him that a so-called “balance of nature” never lasts long. Instead, he learned that ratios of wolves and prey animals eventually fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically.(*see Jan-Feb 1985 National Wildlife or May 1985 Alaska Magazine)

Several severe winters with abnormal snow depths in the Lake Superior area allowed Minnesota deer and the Isle Royale moose to be killed easily by wolves. Killing sprees resulted in up to three times as many deer or moose being killed as in a normal winter – with little or nothing eaten from some of the carcasses the researchers examined.

By 1980 the Isle Royale wolf population had increased to 50 wolves in five packs – with only 788 live moose left to feed them. That <16 moose-per-wolf was the lowest ratio ever recorded on Isle Royale at that time, and the starving wolves began invading neighboring packs’ territories and killing each other in their search for food.

Regardless of any other contributing factors, it was obvious from the records both Peterson and Mech kept, that the wolves’ excessive killing depleted their primary prey species causing the 1980-82 crash in wolf numbers in both locations. The graph below shows that crash in Isle Royale, and the failure of inbred wolves to recover after the starving moose herd crashed 18 years later in 1998 Isle Royale Wolf-Moose Populations 1959-2015.

Isle Royale Wolf-Moose Populations 1959-2015


In 1988, 30 years after Mech’s Isle Royale wolfmoose research began, the agencies and groups involved finally decided to capture, radio collar, and take blood samples from Isle Royale wolves for three years. The object was to determine whether food shortage, disease, or genetic loss was causing the wolves to decline.

Although they found Parvovirus antibodies present in only two wolves only during the first year of testing in 1988, it did not prove the disease was active in the 1980-82 wolf population crash – or whether the wolves encountered it and other diseases after the crash as a result of their mass starvation from lack of prey.

However several members of the Study Support Group immediately began to claim the 1980-82 crash was caused by one or more hypothetical tourists who brought an infected dog to the island. But all five of the principal researchers, published a research paper in the August 1998 Journal of Mammology (18 years after the crash) attributing the 1980-82 wolf crash to the obvious shortage of prey – with parvovirus as a probable contributing factor.

The Corruption of Science

When wildlife biology professors emphasize to their students both the glory and the financial benefits of announcing an exciting new discovery, an increasing number fail to warn them of their responsibility to consider all of the facts they encounter. Sadly, instead of enriching our knowledge and our understanding of the natural world we live in with what is often a slow painstaking process of unbiased investigation, charlatans who pretend to be motivated by science often ignore that part of the process.

When Dr. Val Geist forwarded a May 14, 2013 erroneous article claiming the Isle Royale study area was a “Pristine Wilderness” to Dr. Charles Kay, Dr. Kay’s reply addressed the gross misrepresentations that have been a part of the world famous wolf-moose study since it began.

He pointed out that the entire island had been privately owned – with mining, logging and commercial fish camps. The original Native owners/administrators of the island had been replaced by various commercial interests, yet retained a senior right to hunt, fish and gather.

Dr. Kay explained that the state of Michigan had acquired most of the land and donated it to the National Park Service in order to create a national park and provide more income from tourists. Yet, like the Indians before them, a few of the white settlers retained use of their property, buildings, and even commercial fishing rights.

But once the National Park was created followed by Wilderness designation for the ~400 island land area, the Park Service prohibited all forms of travel on the land areas except hiking, canoeing and kayaking. Instead of providing increased income to Michigan from park visitors as was planned, Congress soon cut the NPS staff funding.

Dr. Kay had previously pointed out that importing uncontrolled moose to Isle Royale, where the largest predators were coyote and lynx, had resulted in wholesale destruction of critical browse for moose and other species. This caused the moose population to crash and made the survivors susceptible to deformities and disease.

And wolves also had very infrequent access to the island – an assurance of their ongoing debilitation and eventual self-destruction through inbreeding. Dr. Kay’s final comments to Dr. Geist express his frustration:

“The entire study has been a waste of time because it is a unique situation and the results are not applicable any place else in North America…and anyone who says it is applicable to other areas is committing scientific fraud. I was going to write an article on all this, but the publisher has had second thoughts. – Charles”

Why True Facts about Isle Royale Are So Important

Back in 1937 as part of his doctoral program, graduate student Durward Allen conducted a two-year study of skunks living on a poultry farm and bird sanctuary owned by Michigan State College. He concluded that skunks that were killing chickens should not be controlled, and he opposed controlling predators or re-stocking prey to restore depleted game populations for the rest of his life.

He was also a lifelong advocate of reducing human populations and creating new restricted “Wilderness” Areas to protect wolves and other large carnivores from human activities. In 1954, when he couldn’t get grant funding as a US Fish and Wildlife Service researcher to study the newly arrived wolves’ impact on moose on Isle Royale, he resigned as Assistant Chief of Wildlife Research for FWS to join the faculty at Purdue University.

By 1958, he had obtained funding from National Geographic and the National Science Foundation for a 10- year study. He coached PhD candidate L. David Mech, who began the study during a 3-year-period when both wolf and moose numbers appeared to be stable – with each increasing slightly.

But instead of directing Mech to continue the study for the full 10-year-period – when he would have seen the moose population begin to crash while the number of wolves skyrocketed – Allen was determined to jam his predator preservationist philosophy down the public’s throat during the first three years, and again two years later.

His actions resulted in Maurice Hornocker doing exactly the same thing with mountain lions and deer from 1964-67 – except the mule deer population in his Central Idaho study area was already nose-diving. Instead of using the Idaho Fish and Game deer counts, he substituted highly exaggerated figures to claim the lions were incapable of limiting deer numbers after only three winters of research.

Farley Mowat’s 1963 “Never Cry Wolf” fiction published as fact, claimed wolves were misunderstood mouse eaters. It paved the way for widespread propaganda campaigns by federal agency employees and intellectuals promoting the continuing Isle Royale study as being vital to understand all predator-prey management elsewhere.

The May 14, 2013 article titled, “Wolves Teach Scientists Their Limitations,” that Dr. Kay received from Dr. Geist, shows the far-reaching scope of that propaganda. It was published in the Washington, D.C.-based The Chronicle of Higher Education, which claims to be the number one source of news, information and jobs for college and university faculty members and administrators.

The weekly Chronicle newspaper has more than 64,000 academic subscribers with more than 315,000 total readers, and the daily website reports more than 1.6 million unique visitors each month. The article by Science Editor Paul Voosen perpetuated the myth that prolonging the 57- year-old study is the only way mainland Minnesota moose managers can find out why their moose herds are declining.

For example, Voosen’s article said the Northeast Minnesota moose population had plummeted by two-thirds during the previous three years while quoting Isle Royale Co-Project Leader John Vucetich as saying the nearby Isle Royale moose population had increased by 80% over roughly the same period. Yet Vucetich admitted that genetic repression of Isle Royale wolves from inbreeding “might” be “part of” the reason for the Moose increase.

In his 2013 article Voosen also claimed the Isle Royale researchers only “recently” discovered the spinal deformities* caused by inbreeding that makes walking or running painful for the wolves. Yet in an April 7, 2009 Scientific American article, Vucetich said researchers had been examining wolf carcasses for 50 years, and back in the 1960s about one-fourth had the spinal deformity. And in 2013 he wrote: “we haven’t found a wolf with a normal spine for the past 15 years.” (*see photos below)



Upper left photo shows a cranial view of normal C7 vertebra on spinal column, while upper right shows C7 vertebra of Isle Royale wolf #3529, with part of it resembling a C6 vertebra (arrow). Unlike normal C7, this painful deformity, called “LSTV,” is a result of inbreeding which impairs movement of the tail and hindquarters.

The bottom photo shows a ventral view of LSTV in wolf #3387. The red line (“gray” if you’re viewing this in black & white) drawn between S1 and S2, illustrates the painful malformation that pinches nerves and affects normal movements.

But this and several other spinal deformities are not the only major impacts from continued inbreeding of the stranded wolves on Isle Royale. Others include greatly increased vulnerability to disease pathogens such as Parvovirus and Lyme Disease, and increasing loss of the ability to breed and produce an adequate supply of healthy surviving replacements.

New Wolf Introduced New Genes to Inbred Wolves

In February of 1998, Isle Royale researchers noticed a different and larger “Alpha Male” leading the Middle Pack which resulted in increasing that pack size to 10 in 1999. That pack also forced another pack out of existence that year and vigorously protected its territory.

While on a surveillance flight in 1999, the pilot and researcher saw the new Alpha male defecating as his pack crossed a frozen lake. When the pack moved on, the pilot landed and they collected the scat (droppings), labeling it from the Alpha Male designated as #93.

The Alpha male began breeding a daughter, #58, in 2002, and other sons and daughters began forming packs and producing young with each other. The brief genetic advantage was soon reversed because, by 2002, five of the six breeding pairs on Isle Royale were either from wolf #93 and his daughter, or his other offspring.

Wolf #93 died in 2006 after eight years as the “Alpha Male” of the Middle Pack, siring 34 offspring, including 21 with his daughter #58. Following #93’s death she began breeding with one of her sons, #152.

Several years after #93’s death, his scat collected in 1999 was finally tested and he was not from Isle Royale.


Large almost white Wolf #93 center, led Middle Pack for eight years, sired 21 offspring with daughter #58 at left side of photo

Several years after #93 died, researchers admitted his offspring were breeding each other because inbreeding had caused the existing Isle Royale wolves to be in such poor condition they were almost incapable of reproducing. Yet the new batch of inbreeding soon destroyed the ability of #93’s offspring to produce their own healthy offspring.

The following is a photo of a severely deformed C7 vertebra in a five-year-old female wolf that was viciously attacked by two pack members several times, and finally escaped via an ice bridge to the Minnesota mainland in February of 2014. It illustrates the return of severe inbreeding and LSTV by Wolf #93 and his offspring.


This wolf was reportedly shot numerous times with an air rifle and one of the pellets entered its lungs between two ribs causing internal bleeding and death. This occurred on private land owned by the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, who delivered the carcass to the Park Service. The necropsy (autopsy) that discovered the fatal pellet by X-ray and recorded the spinal malformations, was performed jointly by the Colorado State Veterinary Diagnostic Lab and the Park Service Chief Veterinarian.


Photo of abnormal damage to young female wolf’s teeth was part of necropsy report.

In a 6-page research report published in Biological Conservation 142 (2009), and titled, “Congenital bone deformities and the inbred wolves (Canis lupus) of Isle Royale,” Swedish canine anatomy expert Jannikke Räikkönen published the analyses of 36 wolf skeletons collected by Isle Royale researchers from 1964-2007.

Except for skeletons collected in 2006-7, portions of the tail end were missing in many of the spinal columns. Yet she found sufficient evidence of spinal abnormality resulting from inbreeding in the Isle Royale skeletons to conclude that the number of wolves affected had grown progressively worse with each generation.

During the 15 years from 1964 through 1978, only one skeleton out of seven (14%) had malformed spines;

During the 19 years from 1980 through 1998, 13 skeletons out of 17 (76%) had malformed spines;

During the five years from 2003 through 2007, 11 skeletons out of 12 (92%) had malformed spines.

In the 6-1/2 years since the Räikkönen et al study results were published, Isle Royale researchers report that 100% of the spines they located have been malformed. Also, one of only three remaining live wolves observed from a distance this past winter was obviously malformed.

Räikkönen conducted her study with assistance from: (a) Rolf Peterson who had been studying Isle Royale wolves as a student in 1970, and was put in charge when Durward Allen retired in 1975; (b) Ecologist John Vucetich who joined the project 20 years later; and (c) Environmental Philosopher Michael Nelson who has been the official Philosopher and Historian for the Isle Royale wolf and moose project since 2005.

Ms Räikkönen addressed the lame excuses her coresearchers used to claim Isle Royale wolf spinal columns did not contain abnormalities caused by inbreeding. Yet she accepted their version of events at Isle Royale, and even altered her report with Vucetich’s suggested changes.

For example, the researchers’ report published in 1998 – 18 years after the 1980 Isle Royale wolf population crash – repeated their initial conclusion that food (prey) shortage was the primary cause of the crash. Yet in 2004, those same researchers began pretending that canine parvovirus – theoretically introduced by one or more undocumented tourists who illegally brought their infected dog(s) with them – was the sole cause of the 1980 crash.

The fact that Isle Royale wolf researchers spent nearly half a century collecting, cleaning and cataloging wolf skeletons, yet claimed they saw no evidence of spine malformations resulting from inbreeding, should have raised serious questions about their real agenda. Unless you believe we should not be allowed to harvest the renewable natural resources we own, and whose management we pay for, you share a responsibility to expose their real agenda.

The environmental extremists who claim to be documenting the wolf-moose relationship on Isle Royale are instead addicted to the destructive agenda promoted by Durward Allen (i.e. that protecting wolves is always necessary and beneficial to moose populations regardless of density or ratio to their prey).

In 2006, Peterson and Vucetich joined two environmental professors from Pennsylvania publishing a “Study Paper” solely blaming “human induced Parvovirus in 1980 or 1981” for the 1980 Isle Royale wolf crash. Because the Parvovirus already existed in wolves and dogs on the surrounding mainland in both the U.S. and Canada, and they still do not have factual evidence when or how it got to Isle Royale, in 1996 they were still claiming visitors had transported it to Isle Royale on their boots*. (* see “Science Times” in the March 19, 1996 New York Times.)

Their 2006 7-page Study Paper published in Ecology Letters claimed the few remaining Isle Royale wolves were still valuable by reducing the impact of global warming on the moose, and by reducing the impact of the moose on their forage. But like the other Isle Royale study predictions, the next few years proved the researchers’ new predictions were just as inaccurate as others had been.

From 2006 – 2015 the wolf population nose-dived from 30 wolves to only three, allowing the moose population to increase from 450 to 1,250. Despite two severe back-to-back winters out of the last four, the four year moose increase averaged 22% per year – more than double any other annual increase since wolves first began killing moose on the Island more than 60 years ago.

The 3 Remaining Wolves Are No Longer Impacting Moose, Which Will Severely Damage the Forage Again

Wolves are no longer making a measurable impact on Isle Royale moose. If the 22% annual moose increase exists for the next three years, moose numbers will nearly double causing severe damage to the forage. Before wolves arrived, uncontrolled moose caused extreme forage damage and crashed from 3,000 to 500 in 1934 (Adolph Murie).

Both researchers and residents reported sighting a significant number of moose on the Island after the 1912- 1913 winter. At that time it was speculated that the moose had crossed from the Canadian mainland on an ice bridge but an employee of a private railroad was interviewed and said his boss had paid him to capture the moose, build shipping containers and ship them by railroad and then boat to Isle Royale to provide moose hunting.

That employee’s statements were being considered by National Park Service officials when Outdoorsman No. 59 was mailed, but have since disappeared from the record. In order to determine whether moose appearance was a socalled “naturally occurring event,” which they support, or “human caused,” which they oppose, it is also necessary to understand the confusing rules for designating a National Park and for creating a quasi Wilderness.

Those rules are further complicated by the fact that Congress and the National Park Service approved the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park, but the NPS remains undecided about whether or not to reintroduce wolves into Isle Royale National Park.

The major difference is that Isle Royale is an island surrounded by several hundred tiny islands, with the closest mainland 15 to 40 or more miles away. The single large predator – the wolf – normally has no escape from the island, and no alternate large prey besides the moose. The wolves multiply much faster than the moose, which finally forced the moose into a “predator pit.”

A Remote Island is a Poor Place to Raise Wolves

When the ratio of moose to wolves fell below about 30:1, there were no longer enough moose to provide sustained nourishment. With no place to go, the starving wolves began to invade each others’ territory searching for food – resulting in wolves killing and eating other wolves.

As mentioned previously, being malnourished also caused the inbred wolves to be more susceptible to disease pathogens, and less likely to breed and produce healthy offspring. The injection of new genes from Wolf No. 93 in 1998 resulted in only a very temporary reduction in the percentage of inbred wolves on Isle Royale.

Also, moose calves that are born following a severe winter weigh less and mature to produce calves that also weigh less and are considered substandard. Skeletons of these young moose exhibit premature crippling arthritis when they are only five years old, making them much easier prey for the inbred diseased wolves.

Isle Royale Biologists Ignore Other Wolf Research

In 1960, Alaska wildlife biologists transplanted two pairs of wolves onto SE Alaska’s Coronation Island in an experiment designed to reduce forage damage by blacktailed deer. During the following summer, a commercial fisherman shot both of the adult female wolves but biologists then discovered wolf tracks made by pups mixed with the two sets of adult male wolf tracks.

Articles in Outdoorsman No. 35 by an Alaska science editor explained how these wolves had three litters over several years, and how 11 or more wolves had finally killed all but three of the formerly abundant deer that had ultimately taken refuge on a steep brushy cliff at the other end of the island.

Dr. Val Geist had shared an office with the research project leader and he confirmed how the wolves killed seals, and finally killed and ate each other after the seals stopped hauling out on the beach. The last remaining wolf starved and Alaska biologists learned not to introduce wolves to an island where there is no opportunity to leave once the wolves decimate their sole source of large prey.

Denali National Park Wolf History Also Ignored

But Isle Royale biologists ignored that as well as the long term Denali National Park research by David Mech and or Layne Adams et al, when protected wolves drove once abundant caribou, moose and Dall sheep populations into a “predator pit”. Despite the establishment of buffer zones* outside of the Park to protect wolves that strayed outside of the park boundary seeking food, 60% of Denali wolves that die each year are killed and eaten in the Park by other hungry wolves defending their territory. (* Buffer zones were established outside the NE boundary of Denali Park but were discontinued by the Board of Game in 2010, not to be reconsidered until 2016.)

Snared Wolf Prompts Petition to Restore Buffer Zones

In 2012, long time Alaska big game guide and trapper Coke Wallace caught one of two breeding females from the Grant Creek wolf pack in a snare outside of the Park. The pack’s other breeding female was found dead from “natural” causes near its den site in the Park that same spring and the two deaths plus the remaining wolf pack moving their new den away from the road in 2013, resulted in a further decline in wolf viewing success from a record high of 44% in 2010 to only 4% in 2013.

After the Park’s name was changed to Denali and its size tripled in 1980, officials recognized the danger to tourists from getting out of their vehicles to get a closer look at wolves that weren’t afraid of humans. They used bus tours for viewing wolves to better control the tourists.

That, plus the negligible impact of hunters and trappers killing a maximum of only one or two Park wolves compared to the much larger number that die from cannibalism and other “natural” causes, were two major reasons given for eliminating the buffer zones by 2010.

Trapper Wallace reported that the female wolf he snared in 2012 was severely malnourished with hip bones and backbone protruding, but a Park Biologist disagreed. However, long time wolf advocate/biologist and former ADFG Game Board member Vic Van Ballenberghe publicly agreed with the trapper’s assessment.

He said the Denali wolves all looked very thin in 2012 and all three big game species they depended on to survive were very low compared to past numbers. Park biologists estimated the total number of wolves in the six million acre Park had declined from 143 in 2007 to only 70 in 2012, and now, three years later, to only 48 in 2015.

The excuses Denali Park biologists used to try to justify their hands-off “natural (ecosystem) management” instead of maintaining a healthy ratio of predators to their prey, produced the same results they have in Yellowstone, Banff, Jasper, Wood Buffalo, Isle Royale, Vancouver Island, and every other place where protected wolves are allowed to exceed a healthy ratio to their prey.

In Mark Hebblewhite’s ten-year study of the impact of returning wolves to the Banff ecosystem in the 1980s, he recorded an annual decline of 8% of moose and a 90% drop in elk numbers – with several woodland caribou herds becoming extinct. But instead of restoring healthy wildlife management in national and provincial parks, Professor Hebblewhite and his fellow extremists insist game managers must allow predators to drive the prey species into predator pits outside of the parks as well (see Outdoorsman No. 38).

Otherwise, he says, there will be more wildlife on the outside than in the parks, and this would discourage visitors from spending money for a remote chance to view a handful of semi-tame “Watchable” wolves in the Parks. That is exactly what has happened in Denali Park.

Why Not Manage for Healthy Wildlife in the Parks?

Even with only 48 wolves in 6 million acres of Park, there are still not enough large prey animals left to feed them year-around on a sustained basis. Yet in the 4.2 million acres of adjacent Game Management Unit 20A that is open to hunting, there are about 300 healthy wolves and 10,000 healthy moose.

In a guest editorial in the 03-29-2015 Alaska Dispatch News, retired forester, biologist and former Game Board member Pete Buist pointed out that the 10,000 moose in Unit 20A provide a human harvest of several hundred moose every year in addition to the estimated 2,000 moose per year that are killed by the 300 wolves.

His editorial explained why the Board of Game’s recent rejection of a petition by primarily outside interests to restore buffer zones to protect Park wolves outside of the Park, was both legal and logical. He also explained why the petition was simply an anti-hunting anti-trapping fund raiser for an extremist group rather than a sincere effort to increase the number of wolves in the Park by restoring a healthy balance of wolves with their prey.

He compared the declining prey and the starving wolves in the Federal Park with the abundant healthy wolves and the human harvest of thousands of pounds of healthy wild game meat by the State in GMU 20A. Then he asked why, if the petitioners wanted more wolves in the Park, they didn’t simply encourage the same healthy management in the Park as existed in 20A.

In 2008, the Isle Royale research/propaganda team consisting of Michael Nelson, Rolf Peterson and John Vucetich published “The Isle Royale Wolf-Moose Project: Fifty Years of Challenge and Insight” revealing years of underhanded activities in the George Wright Forum*. In 2011, a second version titled: “The Isle Royale Wolf– Moose Project (1958-present) and the Wonder of LongTerm Ecological Research” can still be found at: http:// Nelson2011ISRO.pdf as this issue is being printed.

Both versions contain harsh criticisms and namecalling of people who control wolves, as well as the claim they also slowly torture the wolves as part of the price for their evil existence. The 4-yr.-old report also documents the researchers’ brazen refusal to quit the study and leave Isle Royale three times when ordered to by two different Inrterior Secretaries and by their FWS boss.

Then a 2012 article by Rolf Peterson published in Moral Ground titled, “Will There Be Wolves in Paradise?” stated the following “On the Fourth of July in 1981, a dog brought illegally to Isle Royale by a visitor on a private boat carried a new mutant virus—canine parvovirus—to the island. The wolf population was devastated, and most wolves died.”

His comments falsely implied that a human and his dog brought parvovirus to the island and caused the radical 1980-82 wolf decline. Yet of the 36 wolves that died during the two-year crash 20 were recorded several months before the alleged July 1981 trip to the Island with a dog.

The truth is that all of the Isle Royale National Park Svc. Wolf research leaders from Robert Linn in 1956- 1957, Durward Allen in 1958-1975, Rolf Peterson in 1975- 2001 and John Vucetich from 2001 to the present, have tried to convince the public that humans – not wolves – have caused both the moose declines and the wolf declines.

But remember David Mech’s 1985 article cited on Page 1 of this article in which he referenced the Isle Royale wolves doubling to 50 by 1980 while the stunted yearling and two-year-old moose were totally vulnerable to excessive killing by wolves during the series of extreme winters. Mech continued, “Then the population of Isle Royale wolves crashed as expected.”

What Did They Expect?

The fact that the malnourished wolves were killing each other or starving to death once they destroyed too many moose during the series of extreme winters was never questioned by the researchers until after Vucetich and Nelson joined the group and increased its “blame civilized humans” agenda.

During the past few months I have read several dozen pages of their publicized efforts promoting green energy and denouncing bona fide wildlife experts, including Val Geist for his support of hunting and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. They propose to change the “North American Model” so that it has no connection with hunting.

The Organization they formed, “The Conservation Ethics Group,” is actively seeking to convert our energy source to solar panels while outlawing fracking, exploration, development and use of fossil fuels, and promoting their radical vision of Conservation Ethics and Sustainability Ethics.