August 14, 2020

Coyotes: The Mythical Miracle Workers

CoyoteDeerSparPeople are needlessly being misled about large predators and the role, or lack thereof, that these large, wild carnivores play in our forests, regularly referred to as ecosystems. The term ecosystem is even misleading but I’ll leave that for another day.

I was reading a short article the other day by a self-proclaimed expert/advocate of coyotes. In this interview, the question was asked about the role coyotes can play in reintroducing wolves to Maine and regions of the Northeast. The coyote advocate says that through “education” and teaching our children about the wonderful things about coyotes, will cause our children to be more welcoming of them. This “education” evidently will include such nonsense as how important it is “to the balance of the ecosystem.”

In addition:

“Wherever wolves are not in North America, coyotes are a keystone species. So whatever animals they kill to survive, whether it’s a deer or a rodent, they affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics. They’re making those species stronger in ways that we can only glimpse the complexity of.

Their major prey are herbivores, which eat green things that other species depend on. So if you have larger herbivores, like deer, eating massive amounts of the greens that birds, butterflies, bees, and salamanders depend on, then those species go down. Foresters are concerned about the number of deer in this country, and there are very few predators for them, so what’s happening is that they’re destroying our forests.”

Every ounce of that statement is false. The coyote “expert” is labeling wolves as the “keystone species” and if there are no coyotes present, then the coyote becomes the keystone species. (Evidently bears and mountain lions don’t count?) Utter nonsense.  The term “keystone species” is a fabricated, relative term, i.e. political, that carries no actual scientific backing. Call it a human term used to influence the way people see, hear and discuss subjects such as wildlife management and the environment. Google defines “keystone species” as: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.” And what, might I ask, would the “ecosystem” “change drastically” to? The answer probably lies within someone’s ideology. Does this also mean that if a “keystone species” is added to an ecosystem, things, “would change drastically?”

Those who buy into this nonsense, want others to believe that our forests, fields, and wild animals cannot function without “keystone species,” i.e. coyotes and wolves. Their premise is based on an unscientific term that has become a household word, one that is regularly and incorrectly taught in our education factories at all levels – natural regulation, or balance of nature. This, more than likely, the result of the poor and incorrect work of an Australian ecologist, Graeme Caughley. More on this in a bit.

If we consider “balance of nature” and that a coyote is a “keystone species” that without it, “the ecosystem would change drastically,” what was going on in our ecosystems before the proliferation of coyotes and the introduction of wolves? It must have been utter chaos. How did any of us or the animals and plants survive? The same question should be asked about introducing wolves in the Northern Rockies, the Southwest and the Southeast.

How can science (real science) determine anything about “natural regulation” when they don’t understand whether wildlife is driven by food, habitat or the existence of predators, all or a combination of any? It can’t. Therefore, one can only theorize and in doing so, all elements of influence of thought become value-driven. In other words, a person or group of persons sees something a particular way based on personal value and interpretation – that value and interpretation manipulated by brainwashing and propaganda. Combine that with a perception of how they would like the ecosystem to function and we then realize the creation of nonsensical, unscientific, and romantic notions of “balanced” life among plants, animals and humans. Few can see or are willing to see, that along with these scientismistic beliefs, man is in the way and thus billions of us need to be killed in order to protect the resources. Becoming the useful idiots of Environmentalism plays right into the hands of one’s own destruction. If we could but open our eyes.

Neither a coyote nor a wolf is necessary in order that a chunk of real estate, and all that is on it, is somehow balanced. What happens is a person or group of persons decides (value driven) that any “change” that occurs, due to the introduction of wolves or coyotes, is a good thing. I guarantee others will think it’s not (value-driven). With this then comes the bombardment of utter nonsense as is demonstrated above as to what coyotes do to an ecosystem – nonsense that is fabricated, romance, fake biology.

For someone to suggest that animals and plants in an ecosystem, if man would butt out, reach some sort of equilibrium, not only does that person not understand nature itself, but are somehow placing human qualities of “social regulation” as is written above. Are we seriously to believe that a coyote eats just the right amount of deer and rodents, hand-selecting the diseased ones first, and the ones with bad genes, leaving a perfectly “balanced” and healthy population of plants and animals? In those areas where wolves and coyotes don’t exist, the ecosystems must be overrun with wild canine prey animals, with poor genes and full of disease. Are they?

Dr. Charles Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology, Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, once wrote: “Wolves [coyotes] do not socially regulate. Instead, wolves [coyotes] are in the business of turning prey animals into more wolves [coyotes] as quickly as they can without any regard for the health of prey populations.”

And the result is the wild fluctuations of prey animal species and predators, along with the “complexity” of the collateral changes. Uncontrolled large predators do not “balance” ecosystems. They are quite capable of turning them into utter chaos of scarcity, depending upon situations that exist and the influences in place.

Dr. David Mech, recognized as an authority on wolves and wolf behavior has been quoted as saying, “We would expect wolves to kill as many prey as possible. There is little for wolves to gain by being prudent about resources within their territory.”

This speaks directly to the romantic notion that coyotes, “affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics.” Wolves and coyotes, like all wild animals, eat to survive. Scientific research has determined that wolves and coyotes, kill to eat and kill for the sake of killing. They do not have the mental capacity to adapt human social agendas to their surroundings to ensure they live in a healthy ecosystem.

There are some pockets where there may possibly be too many ungulates that are actually “destroying” the forests but it is far from the norm and even in those cases, the idea of “destruction” is a value-driven, or in some cases, an economic-driven situation. Large predators must be controlled by man. That is how we can attain and sustain any semblance of “balance” – that “balance” of which is now being handled with a combination of science and social demands by the public. Demanding the protection of all animals, including predators, in search of that value-driven, natural equilibrium, is a product of political manipulation that begins with our children from the first day of life. It is a shame that they cannot be taught the truth.

We know that it is the goal of Environmentalism to change the science of wildlife management and how it is discussed. What that means is that ideology and political agendas, will take over the normal scientific process and replace it with outcome-based, post-normal scientism, which is what balance of nature is rooted in. Proven scientific research is abandoned and replaced with changed rhetoric and talking points based on ideology and other sinister plans.

When one considers the influences in our society that have most affected how people think and discuss wildlife management, and in particular that of predator wild canines, it is no wonder the public hasn’t any truthful understanding of those creature’s habits.

Dr. Kay also tells us that there where five events that took place, that because of terrible science, or the deliberate “changing of paradigms,” that have been used over the past 40 or so years that have manipulated and changed “the way we think about wildlife management.”

The five events were, 1. Farley Mowat’s book, “Never Cry Wolf” which has been proven to be a complete work of fiction. 2. Maurice Hornocker’s mountain lion study, which claimed that mountain lions had no effect on prey animals because the lions “socially regulated.” Social regulation, is of course, a myth. 3. Isle Royale’s wolf study, an event that while some elements of scientific study can be taken from the event, Isle Royale does not resemble any typical ecosystem because of it’s isolation from the rest of the world. 4. The Kaibab Deer Incident, another claim that predators had no effect on prey species. With predators removed, the mule deer population soared to over 100,000. 5. Graeme Caughley, an Australian ecologist who developed computer models to “prove” his notion that natural regulation was driven by food availability. It was proven that his modeling was unscientific and rigged to achieve a desired outcome.

Unfortunately, because his terrible work was accepted in the world of “Ecology”, Caughley co-authored a book about wildlife management – a piece of work that is still used today in universities. And we wonder why people make such ridiculous claims about coyotes.

So long as those with agendas, the power and the control, continue to teach wildlife management fiction, what hope is there for a world in which real science drives the actions?

The United States has become a society in which perverse notions exist about animals. Those notions include placing human traits and qualities on animals and thus people want to believe that animals socially adapt seeking an equilibrium with their surroundings, much like humans do. Animals are not humans and are not even closely related in any way shape or form and yet, someone believes that coyotes will do the work of men to achieve a socially desirable, “Balance of Nature.”

 

Share

Know Your Enemy: Attack of the NGOs

Dollar-Ase-270x300*Editor’s Comment* – Of the many, many items I have read and researched over the years about Agenda 21, and now Agenda 2030, the following article if perhaps one of the better basic learning lessons of how “policy” is derived – emphasis on basic. (Note: The development of “policy” has become the foundation of law in this nation. Each administration develops its own “policy.” Policy is implemented throughout all departments and practiced as the policy directs. In time, “policy” becomes law. We all need to learn and understand this basic concept.)

I have not read, nor followed Tom DeWeese, and so perhaps this piece is intended to be a beginning step toward educating people about how  the global power structure exists and is exercised.

I do not agree completely with what is written, but as I and others have pointed out, it’s a starting point.

DeWeese describes quite well how “ideas” are brought into the system for developing plans, conventions, policy, laws and treaties but comes up short of a more specific description of where those of influence with the “ideas” come from. They are not pulled out of thin air and very few participants to United Nations meetings have the mental capacity to devise such ideas. (Sorry, but they don’t. If they did, I wonder if they would even be there.)

It’s easy to say that NGOs and nation governments, along with the United Nations, develop policy and then work toward getting that policy applied to nations through laws and/or treaties. It’s not some kind of magical happenstance. It’s far more complex as well as expertly hidden from the view of anyone caring enough to investigate at a deeper level. Few are and therefore it makes the job of preventing exposure of corrupt governments that much easier.

By the time Average Joe in Small Town, America hears words, ideas, policies, conventions, laws and treaties, what they receive are well-crafted words that sound too good to be true. None are wise to what is really taking place – due in part to a well-crafted propagandizing/mind controlled education system.

Each of the “members” who come to these tables of discussion with “ideas” are sent by the Global Power Structure and introduced to NGO representatives, as well as government departments and their representatives, etc. Not unlike the Delphi Technique, the Ruling Establishment creates the “ideas” and agenda. Agents bring those to meetings and they get “introduced” and are discussed. Because the departments are rigged, the agenda passes and the new policy returns to nations where certain members already knew what was coming back. It’s all part of a very big membership that is heavily infiltrated into every aspect of everyone’s lives throughout the world.

DeWeese alludes to the fact that all of this effort is “leading” us toward global governance. I’m afraid the “leading” has passed behind us now and is mostly present, at least at some level, in our lives today. Few notice or even pay attention.

It is a rigged system and the administrators of that rigged system use NGOs, state and local governments and their representatives as useful idiots to carry out their fascist plans through totalitarian efforts.

I suggest reading the following linked-to article but remember, it is not 100% accurate – little ever is and by far is not even remotely close to being a complete look at any power structure that is devising Agenda 2030 policy.

Put in simple street language, the procedure really amounts to a collection of NGOs, bureaucrats and government officials, all working together toward a predetermined outcome. They have met together in meetings, written policy statements based on international agreements, which they helped to create and now they are about to impose laws and regulations that will have dire effects on people’s lives and national economies. Yet, with barely a twinge of conscience they move forward with the policy, saying nothing. No one objects. It’s understood. Everyone goes along. For this is a barbaric procedure that insures their desired outcome without the ugliness of bloodshed, or even debate. It is the procedure used to advance the radical, global environmental agenda.

Read the Deweese Report – Know Your Enemy: Attack of the NGOs

Share

“Big Changes” Probably Means Things Will Get Worse

DelphiTechniqueI was caught by a headline today that read, “Big changes coming for Maine’s big game plans.” If that is true then logically one must ask why is there a need for changes at all saying nothing about those changes being big?

The article states that deer, bear, moose and turkey will fall under management of a “single plan”, whatever that means, and the new “plan” will be “major” because the public is going to be sought after in “a new aggressive effort.” What possibly could go wrong?

If you must know, once again the Maine Government is attempting to “fix” something by creating, yet another, “steering committee” made up of “stake holders.” Stake holders generally means those connected insiders, many of whom have sat on previous committees to “fix” things, instrumental in creating new knowledge, shifting paradigms, ie. change agents who are brainwashed into believing that if real issues are disregarded, mostly because they are not liked for various reasons, and that if discussions become something different, whether relevant or not and always loaded down with political agendas, somehow those perceived “problems”, mostly political and financial, will go away.

What we are seeing here is the planned result of efforts to remove actual science from the wildlife management process that began many years ago and replacing it with political and social efforts of those trained, directly or indirectly, in the application of the Delphi Technique, in which the public is brought into discussions thinking they have an actual say in the process while the change-agent, Delphi technicians, manipulate and control the outcome. Those unfamiliar with the process are none the wiser.

The author writes, whether his own words or those of the steering committee, that there were “Lessons Learned.” I don’t think so. Perhaps what someone is observing is their perspective on what the present wildlife management plans have accomplished or not accomplished, stating that you can’t manage moose in high numbers to appease the moose watching public and businesses, while at the same time expecting to have a healthy moose herd. How many times have I written about this?

In addition, the same list of “Lessons Learned” shows that someone thinks you can’t manage for maximum moose numbers in the same location you are trying to manage deer at maximum numbers. Again, I have written about this problem in the past more than once.

Maine’s “Wildlife Planner” said that the Department knows what it would take to “do their job”(my words not his) but they don’t have the tools, claiming one of those tools to be, “We don’t own the land.” Does this indication the Department bemoans it is not a tyrant dictator or that they are failing to protect the king’s resources? Is Maine the only state that don’t have the tools nor own the land?

To lament that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife can’t do their jobs because of social issues, like being scared to harvest more bears, as well as habitat, climate change, education, disease, it makes no sense at all to bring in those who have been most instrumental in creating a social vs. scientific dilemma to solve their own problem. It would seem logical that as wildlife management has shifted from scientific to social, along with exploding social “problems” in dealing with wildlife issues, resulting in poor herd management, the trend should be returning to science and away from social. This is not difficult to grasp.

Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing repeatedly, making no changes, and hoping for a different outcome. Forming another committee is insane. It’s also a cop out for the wildlife department to draw focus away from their own failures, while saying they will seek the public’s input on wildlife management desires.

Big changes will never happen. If big changes are needed, it is only because it has taken years to move wildlife management away from a scientific North American Wildlife Management Model, to meet the non scientific demands of a misled and agenda-driven population. This is the real change that is needed, however, this will not happened when the same agents of change who caused it in the first place, are called upon to “fix” the problem.

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

Share

The Push for a Population Reduction Civil War

ProtestViolenceIs there something in the air that might be causing a shift in how many “peaceful” American citizens view their constitutional rights? I know, and a few other people know, that there are continuous psychological warfare operations designed to influence the way people think and react to specific issues. The media plays the biggest role in this effort.

I believe that people who seriously cherish their liberty are the true liberals, not the Leftists who co opted the label for political gain. True liberals and most libertarians want and enjoy their rights and want to be left alone in doing so. They also do not attempt to force their ideals onto others.

The Left understands this and so, often turn to violence to push their agendas, knowing any push back will be only verbal.

Readers should understand I’m not supporting one side over the other necessarily, instead pointing out the differences and to say that these differences exist for reasons very few people understand. As the Left/Right paradigm is a contrived hoax, I’m sure leftist violence and libertarian passivity are also man-created for political purposes.

I’ve been watching the goings on in Oregon after the shooting and see some things that I find a bit troubling and also is causing me to ask myself a few questions.

We know that President Obama immediately politicized the shootings, pretending to be angry at a press conference and saying he was going to politicize the event for personal gain…sorry, I think he said to protect the American people. How noble. I guess that’s why he won the Noble Peace Prize.

We are in the throes of a presidential campaign – throes because it is a painful beginning to coming change. We heard candidate Ben Carson tell the world that if he were in a situation where someone put a gun to his head and asked him if he was a Christian, he wouldn’t give them an answer and instead would confront the shooter and fight back, all the while calling upon others present to join him in that attack.

Immediately much of the media jumped all over that comment accusing Carson of promoting violence while at the same time blaming the victims for being dead or wounded because they didn’t fight back. On the other side, even from law enforcement, we began to hear support for Carson’s point of confronting and imminent shooter.

What’s ironic here – if that’s actually the word I want to use – is the “left” pretended or ignorantly stood in opposition to Carson’s call for fighting back, i.e. violence, and yet the left is notorious for violence and killing to promote agendas. The “right,” historically passive in such matters, is supporting the action to stand up to mass shooters and fight back, i.e. violence.

But this debate is limited to gun issues…isn’t it? Do these same people react the same way when it comes to other issues?

First we must understand that anytime that there is a killing, with a gun, it’s a Second Amendment issue, nothing else, except of late there seems to be a movement of some kind to place the blame on mental illness. More than likely just another psychological warfare operation. Is there the same outward, emotional debate, when you or your neighbor are victims of Fourth Amendment violations? What about First Amendment, etc.?

This morning I was reading an Andrew McCarthy article published at Pajamas Media. In addressing the Oregon school shooting, he places the present time as a “post-constitutional republic.” He does a good job of explaining how people see things, but comes up a bit short as to why people see things the way they do. However, I don’t want to miss the point.

The author questions why there is debate over a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and yet states:

“Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.

Reading that I was reminded of the events surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing. I sat in front of my television in utter disbelief as I watched law enforcement march down a street, with armored vehicles, pointing weapons of all sizes into the faces of anybody inside a house daring to look outside. While this was going on, police went door to door, busting down doors if necessary, intruding into the homes of innocent people looking for someone they had labeled a terrorist bomber. But what totally disgusted me was later in the evening, after the police claimed to have captured one of the alleged bombers, as they drove out the street, hoards of onlookers stood and applauded the efforts to the police. Why? They trampled all over the Fourth Amendment. But, as the writer above says, “we would not abide a suggest that we reconsider whether the government may break into you home…” We would NOT reconsider that but only because we have been brainwashed to think under circumstances, even fake ones, it’s for our safety that government suspends the constitution.

I guess McCarthy was right when he said there isn’t “supposed to be much policy debate.” As he also points out later, Americans tend to lack conviction in their belief of constitutional rights. And that, my friends, is all about design. Something this magnanimous could not happen by chance.

Not to get lost from my point, the author doesn’t come right out and say it, but he is suggesting that those who do believe in the constitutional rights, should be willing to be more assertive and proud and stand up for those rights and not apologize for them. Is the author also suggesting that perhaps it might even become necessary to resort to violent push backs, only if necessary (wink, wink) against those wishing to destroy those rights? And if someone, the government, the media, a friend, a candidate tells you your rights are being taken away and you need to fight back, will you? Blindly?

Consider again what Ben Carson said about the Oregon shooting. He said he wouldn’t just stand or sit there and let some person blow his brains out without fighting back. And then consider the aftermath while keeping in perspective my assertion above that historically liberty-loving people seldom resort to violence, at least not in what might be deemed illegal ways.

The actions in the aftermath are the fruit of the gun control PSYOP. There may actually be overlapping PSYOPs taking place. The gun control actions are about stealing rights and instilling fear in people that guns kill people. It’s always the gun that kills, never the person pulling the trigger. Attack the guns. People are programmed to attack the gun and take away the right.

In Boston the people have been programmed to believe that suspending the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, was necessary for their safety. They welcomed it. After all, this has been drummed into the heads for how long? The Patriot Act is necessary for our safety – the Government said so and we believe it.

As Andrew McCarthy pointed out the reason the Founders wrote the Second Amendment was to ensure that government would not become too powerful and resort to tyranny. And today, the people cry out for government. They cry out for government to take away the guns that were meant to protect them FROM government. None of this makes sense. The more we give government power the less liberty we have. Why don’t we understand that?

Is the current presidential campaign becoming another means of shifting the way the peaceful right goes about their business? Enter Donald Trump. Trump, the master salesman, television personality, and fake regular guy, says what pissed off people want to hear. Understand that people have become pissed off because the plan was crafted to make all those people angry. It is all mostly fake, sold to America through the media. Years and years of manipulation of the minds of people and the world is full of hatred, distrust and anger. People like Trump come along and feed on that. They empower the angry. Finally there is hope, some exclaim. And yet, with no lessons learned, voters have forgotten Trump is corporate America, Trump is Wall Street, Trump is banking.

Newly empowered, some are standing up for what they believe are their rights where they wouldn’t have before. With somebody who will say what angry people want to hear, even if he doesn’t believe any of it for himself, how far will they go? Are these people actually being programmed to rise up against each other.

If Ben Carson and others believe that the right thing to do when you believe you are going to be shot anyway is to fight back, does that mean that same approach should be taken to issues where your life might be at stake? What if you believe that the actions of someone or something, maybe the government, is going to ultimately threaten your life? Do you go down fighting?

Again I ask, are we being programmed further and further toward violence? What is the end game?

Consider a comment left at the above article. This type of comment is commonly found by leftists who hate rightist’s ideology. They always attack with violence or the threat of violence. It’s what they know. It’s what they have been taught. Not necessarily by the right.

“I’m not going to shoot at the Army or LEO’s if the liberals are able to order gun seizures.

No, if we get to a point where there are gun seizures, I’m plan to target liberal pundits, liberal politicians, their wives, their children, their campaign donors, etc. These are all nice soft targets that won’t shoot back. This is the logical action to take, since these are the people people who are really at fault for the encroachment upon my civil liberties.”

Before we act and react, especially to the lies we are fed continuously by the media, we should all take a moment to really think about from what source is all the hatred coming from. It isn’t what you think.

Share

America: Private Playground by Covert Mass Genocide

SpanishInfluenzaTwo days ago I provided readers with a link to a story written by an anonymous, health-related scientist. The scientist claims to be a retired government scientists who chooses to remain anonymous because he fears for his life for what he knows.

The article was mostly about chemical aerosol spraying by military and commercial jets into our atmosphere as a means of preparing citizens, in a negative way, for a planned “outbreak” of Influenza A. This is a means, among several, to take a big bite out of the human population. Why?

It is no secret, if you look, that the goal of the ruling establishment, i.e. powerful covert and not so covert groups that have the ability to promulgate just about anything they set their minds to. One of the plans is the reduction of the global human population by billions as we head into the mid-twenty-first century. Whether you want to believe that, it is your choice. However, remember, they believe it and have implemented plans to achieve those goals.

Another of the goals, and closely related, is to drive what remains of the people, before, during and after the event, off the land and into urban settings, more closely resembling prisons than cities. This is being accomplished in several ways, most of which are right in front of our noses but we are incapable of seeing it…all part of the plan.

In the link I gave you, I included the last paragraph the anonymous writer composed. I’ll provide it again:

And think about this for a moment. Why do you suppose agencies like Fish and Wildlife are so eager to reintroduce wolves and other species into areas of the country which haven’t seen these animals for generations. It’s all part of the plan to restore this land to what the elite envision as its early paradise-like state, with wild animals freely roaming the uninhabited plains and forests. Granted, it will take some time to clean up the place and to maybe destroy a lot of small towns that might otherwise be considered a blight on the landscape. But for the global elite it will be a small price for us to pay for their enjoyment.

It is important that readers get to work and learn who this “global elite” the “ruling establishment” really are. Instead of offhandedly verbalizing the terms suggested, as though they were something never seen that would never bother you, discover for yourself who they are and why it should matter to you. I am trying to help you do that.

If the “global elite” are trying to murder us all and if they want the United States to be their own private park and playground, void of humans, except for the few thousand necessary as slaves of the elite, teeming with hand-selected, hand-protected and hand-grown wildlife, I would say that would be reason enough to look a bit further. They believe it and have written plans. Aren’t those reasons enough?

So, let’s look.

Cuban-born historian and author, Servando Gonzalez, writes the following in his book, “Psychological Warfare and the New World Order.” This book gives readers a look at two things: What the New World Order looks like (it’s already here by the way) and who some of the conspirators (global elite, consisting of the inner, most secret circles of the Council on Foreign Relations) are and how they operate.

Psychological Warfare and the New World Order – The Secret War Against the American People – Servando Gonzalez, pp. 227-228:

“In late-1947, President Truman approved NSC-4/A. This document put the newly created CIA in control, through its Office of Policy Coordination, of planning and executing psychological warfare operations. The overt purpose of these psychological warfare operations was to wage the Cold War against America’s main enemy: communism and the Soviet Union.

“Nevertheless, as I have shown above in this book, the main enemy of the conspirators who created the CIA has always been the American people. Consequently, it is obvious that the true target of these psychological warfare operations is the American people.

“On April 20, 1950, Truman gave a speech in which he announced a new “Campaign of Truth” as an antidote to Soviet propaganda. Most of this Campaign for Truth, however, consisted in a campaign of lies to instill fear in the Americans’ minds, painting the Soviet Union as an 800-pound gorilla with an itchy finger on the nuclear button.

“Ultimately, the conspirators’ two main goals are the elimination of 85 percent of the world’s population [emboldening added] and the reduction of the survivors to pre-industrial levels of consumption. Once we realize what the two main goals of the conspirators really are, it becomes evident that all the big themes overtly and covertly promoted by the conspirators since the 1960s are conducive to reaching two goals: population elimination and consumption reduction.

“The massive practice of abortion and extended use of anticonceptives, the promotion of homosexuality, the artificial creation of wars, terrorism and violent conflicts, the instigation of fratricidal and religious wars, the control and restriction of alimentary sources in Africa and Latin America, the prohibition of the use of DDT in Africa and other underdeveloped countries – which resulted in less productive crops, the reappearance of malaria and the death of millions of people -, the creation and dissemination of bacteriological warfare agents (most likely the AIDS virus was one of them), are directly linked to this goal of population reduction.

“On the other hand, the bankrolling of the religious left to promote environmentalism, sustainability [emboldening added] and New Age religious beliefs, as well as the promotion of scientific fallacies like anthropogenic global warming, the opposition to the exploitation of new oil reserves, and the creation of new oil refineries and nuclear plants, directed at the destruction of [the]energy base in which the industrial revolution is based. Without that energy base, a drastic reduction in consumption to pre-industrial, medieval levels will occur automatically.

“Curtailing these energy resources is the first step in the implementation of the neo-feudal society the conspirators envision for the rest of us. It is highly revealing that both American “progressive” leftists and the most reactionary members of the Council on Foreign Relations see Castro’s Cuba, a country in which the conspirators have successfully tested the coming neo-feudal society, as the model to follow.

“Two key elements in this conspiracy of enormous proportions, whose ultimate goal is the elimination of most of the world’s population, are Darwinism and gun control [emboldening added]. Darwinism is the key element of a PSYOP whose goal is discrediting and eventually destroying the Christian religions. Christianity sees life as a gift from God, therefore it creates moral dilemmas and ethical barriers in the minds of the would-be mass executioners.

“Darwinism will play the role of eradication from the minds of the executioners all moral and ethical barriers that Christianity has erected against the killing of human beings. Obviously, it is morally easier to kill evolved pieces of inanimate matter than human beings whose life, according to Christians, is sacred because it is a gift bestowed to them by their God.

“Granted, the ideas that life is a gift bestowed to us by our Creator is still a religious belief without any scientific base whatsoever. But nobody can deny that it has more socially redeeming value than the religious belief that life is just an accident of nature – unless your secret goal is destroying several billion human lives.

In the same fashion, the registration and eventual confiscation of guns, and the total prohibition of its possession by citizens, makes it very difficult for the targets of democide to defend themselves [emboldening added]. History has shown that it is a lot easier to kill unarmed people than armed ones. Gun confiscation was the first step the mass killers took in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China and Castro’s Cuba before committing democide.

“If the horrors of Nazi Germany were not a historic fact, most readers may think that this possibility is too terrible to be even considered. Nevertheless, we should not forget that history has a tendency to repeat itself, and the new generations usually forget past experiences and keep repeating the same mistakes. Proof of it that many people, including some of the descendants of Nazi victims, honestly believe that gun control is a good measure for governments to take.

“Needless to say, the many psychological warfare operations devised, planned and carried out by the conspirators to reach their goals are kept wrapped under the most total secrecy. As I have mentioned above in this book, secrecy is the main tool used by the conspirators to successfully advance their plans. Yet, a few times they have been careless, have made mistakes, and the study in which a particular PSYOP is based has been revealed.”

A person would have to be willfully blind to not see all of this taking place right in front of them. Wake up.

 

 

Share

Deer Fearless, Bears Afraid, Pesticides Banned, Lyme Disease Promoted

DeerAttackSignFurthering the substantiation that the world has gone mad, I read of a town in Oregon where people are trying to figure out, “how to deal with droves of fearless deer.” Officials say, “The deer have no fear of humans” and “Deer just live there.” The same officials say that when there are too many deer sharing the same space with humans, “there’s going to be conflict.”

Toss the coin and when a bear appears, or a wolf, or a mountain lion, or a bobcat, or a coyote, “they are more afraid of you than you should be of them.” We are also told how “rare” it is to be attacked by any of these predators and yet, now seemingly on a daily basis, we hear about attacks on humans by large predators. Also note that the presence of large predators in human-settled landscapes doesn’t prompt these same officials to declare that when that happens, “there going to be conflict.” Just with deer I guess.

But not to fear about the deer. Officials say, “yell or make loud noises,” and they won’t bother you. I think they forgot to “look big”…or does that just apply to bears?

The events in the small town in Oregon aren’t anything new. In many parts of the country, deer are prevalent in numbers too big to ignore. Some want to give deer birth control pills. Even one university attempted to “fix” some deer so they couldn’t get pregnant, too stupid to understand that the “fix” didn’t cure the deer from “coming into heat,” which attracted all the buck deer for miles around. Result? More deer than when they started because the female deer remained in heat 24/7, thanks to the “fix.”

And yes, history, once again proves that history not learned is history repeated. There are cures for such problems. The cure has been in place for many, many years. But because citizens are unknowingly so severely brainwashed, (this is called paradigm shifting, changing the way wildlife management is looked at and dealt with and the creation, out of thin air, of “new knowledge.”) they are willing to risk their own lives, and that of others, so that deer can multiply, get sick, spread disease and cause other human deaths.

Going hand in hand with the sickness that pervades this nation, Environmentalism, we also see where in Maine, the state with the third highest incidence of Lyme Disease, wants to ban pesticides and fertilizers. More than likely that will happen. We are so stupid we can’t see that sometimes the benefits outweigh the risks. This is true in so many aspects of American life. I recall one time visiting a home for dinner. I looked across the table for some table salt and couldn’t spot any, so I asked. It was explained to me that because salt causes high blood pressure, they didn’t consume salt anymore, instead relying on an imitation or salt substitute.

I shook it on my food and began to eat. Almost instantly, my mouth felt like someone had poured gasoline in it. Once the attack simmered down, I picked up the container of salt substitute and began reading the ingredients. It was like reading a long list of toxic chemicals. Seriously, take your chances with the salt.

And let’s not forget all the wonderful things that have happened (for animals) once the Environmentalists banned DDT. Yep, we were lied to and told how we saved the animals and stopped put humans at risk from exposure to DDT (a rare event), but never to count the millions of dead people due to mosquito and other insect-borne diseases. In our brilliance, we think we save a tiny number of birds and killed millions of people. Brilliant! But, wasn’t that the plan? Club of Rome – Eugenics?

Our society is so emotionally consumed, all by design by the way, and madly in love with animals (many of the same hate human beings), they are willing to put other people’s lives at risk in order to protect the animals. The same holds true with “saving the planet” and it’s getting worse, spiraling out of control.

There should be a simple, common sense approach in which a person(s) can sensibly make a determination as to when decisions are necessary for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We don’t have that choice any longer. Government decides that for us and useful idiots do their bidding for them.

I’ve got news for you. Government wants to kill you and you want to support government? Does that make sense?

Stand by for a shock! In Oregon, kill the damned deer. Salvage the meat and feed the hungry. End of problem. It’s really quite simple.

Share

Read How We Got Where We Are – Then Use Just Two Facts to Expose the Truth about Wolves

*Note* – The following article is published on this website with the consent of the author. Please support The Outdoorsman by clicking on the link to your right on the computer screen and subscribing to the print publication. The only way this honest and accurate work can continue is with your support. Thank you.

by George Dovel

If knowledgeable outdoorsmen had easy access to just two indisputable facts from bona fide wildlife experts, they could use just those facts to discredit the self-serving clichés from the quasi-environmentalists and self-proclaimed “wildlife conservationists.”

The two facts referenced in this article have been verified by long-term studies conducted by acknowledged wildlife experts on both sides of the wolf issue. This makes them virtually impossible to refute so the radical must resort to attacking you or your source of information.

If you go on the offensive for a change and arm yourself with just these two facts, and the names of the wildlife experts who provided them, there is no need to engage radical wolf preservationists in further discussion. Your job is to present facts – not to expose yourself or your sources to ridicule for errors in grammar, lack of academic credentials, etc.

Fact #1 – Failure to Properly Control Wolves to Maintain Healthy Balance with Their Prey Eventually Decimates Prey and Starving Wolves Kill Each Other

Thirty years ago, internationally recognized wolf authority L. David Mech published an article titled, “How Delicate is the Balance of Nature?” (see National Wildlife Vol. 23, No. 1, and the May 1985 Alaska Magazine). In that article, Mech admitted that his initial three year 1958-1962 wolf-moose study as a graduate student on Isle Royale helped fix the balance of nature idea in the public mind.

Mech wrote: “During two decades of wolf research, conducting studies in northern Minnesota and on Isle Royale in Michigan, I have learned that, far from always being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically. Wolves may actually starve after killing off almost all the moose and deer in an area. This explains why wolf-control programs may sometimes ensure greater and more stable numbers of both wolves and the animals they hunt.”

Mech then described how the once famous white-tailed deer population in northeast Minnesota began to crash after wolf control was halted. He and his students flying in a ski-equipped plane radio-tracking collared wolves saw fewer deer every year.

Most of the deer in the 1,500-square-mile northeast region were not accessible to hunters during hunting season, and seven severe winters made the deer far more vulnerable to wolves. Mech and his students observed deer killed by wolves with little or nothing eaten, and the wolves increased and prospered until they ran out of deer.

Then a starving pack of wolves looking for prey invaded another pack’s territory resulting in wolves killing wolves. Meanwhile, malnourished juvenile wolves continued to starve to death or succumb to diseases instead of replacing adults that died.

The few wolves that survived had turned to killing moose and beaver and a similar scenario with the white-tailed deer and wolves in Northeast Minnesota was also playing out with moose and wolves on Michigan’s Isle Royale. Human killing was not a significant factor in either location.

In his 1985 article, Mech wrote: “However, there is little disputing the results of a recent well-controlled experiment in Central Alaska. Some 38 to 60 percent of the wolves were removed each year from a test area while wolves were not controlled in several adjoining areas. Moose and caribou calves and yearlings increased two- to four-fold where wolves had been taken compared with their numbers before wolf control and were consistently higher than in areas with no wolf removal. Actual moose and caribou herd sizes followed the same trends.”

“Control programs allow recovery of both prey and wolves so that each could live over a longer period. It is something I am reminded of every time I fly over my Minnesota study area and look at lake shores that were speckled with deer and wolves in the late 1960s, and that now lie empty.”

The following graph was photocopied from the 2014-2015 Isle Royale Report by Vucetich and Peterson:

IsleRoyaleMooseGraph

Contributors to the Balance of Nature Myth Starting on the left side of the graph, the first five black squares and five white diamonds indicate a four-year average of about 600 moose to feed an average of 22 wolves. That reflected an average ratio of only 27 moose per year per wolf but that ratio increased slightly to about 33 moose per year per wolf in 1963.

Using only the three years of wolves observed, and guessing the number of moose based on limited wolf kills that were mostly found by volunteers during the summer, did not prove Mech’s and Durward Allen’s National Geographic claim that wolves maintained a “balance.”

Mech’s bias was evident in two articles published in the June and July 1960 issues of Pennsylvania Game
News promoting the “Balance of Nature” as a supposed fact even before the brief Isle Royale study was completed.

In 1930, Charles Elton, the father of modern Wildlife Ecology, wrote, “The ‘balance of nature’ does not
exist and perhaps never has existed. The numbers of wild animals are constantly varying to a greater or less extent, and the variations are usually irregular in period and always irregular in amplitude (being ample).”

Yet 33 years later, an unproven hypothesis by Durward Allen and his student, catapulted them into instant fame and fortune when it was published in National Geographic. It also brought forth a series of “me too” biologists and others who ignored or altered facts to make it appear their favorite predator needed special protection.

The Craigheads “Sick and Crippled” Theory

In 1958, I spent several months transporting a USGS Tellurometer crew by helicopter between mountain peaks in Yellowstone National Park and adjacent high country. I became good friends with two Rangers and the YNP Biologist, who explained in detail how increasing grizzly bear numbers were reducing the little known YNP Madison-Firehole elk herd that wintered entirely in the Park on the upper Madison River.

He invited me back in May of 1959 to watch grizzlies and even a black bear pursue and easily catch and
kill those cow elk that were calving in late May and early June. That was the same year the Craighead twins, Frank and John, assisted by graduate student Maurice Hornocker, began to study grizzly bears in Yellowstone Park.

Each year the Craigheads were aware that after the grizzly bears emerged from hibernation, they were killing large numbers of Madison-Firehole cow elk that were ready to calve. Yet their 1968 National Geographic article included a photograph of a grizzly covering a bull elk carcass with dirt and grass with the following comment:

“The grizzly’s keen sense of smell enables it to detect and locate carrion from afar. Rarely does a grizzly kill a healthy adult elk, but it may fell a sick or disabled one.”

This change from managing our wild game to benefit humans, to researchers lying about the impact of
excessive predator-to-prey ratios, needed to be brought to the public. But the larger circulation national hunting and fishing magazines including Outdoor Life and Field and Stream declined to print factual articles about this, telling me they were “too controversial.”

In 1969 we began publishing The Outdoorsman and did what was necessary to send thousands of
complimentary copies to licensed hunters in the lower 48 states and Alaska. Our list of paid subscribers and their elected officials soon reached 30,000 and our publication of facts began to produce results.

In May of 1970 Rob Donley and I photographed grizzlies killing pregnant cow elk just before calving on the upper Madison, including evidence of bears ripping the fetus out of the womb and eating all but the lower legs of that delicacy. We invited outfitter Steve Jordan along to shoot 35 mm movies of a spectacular chase in the open during which a grizzly covered half a mile while the group of pregnant elk he was chasing ran little more than half that distance before the bear caught up with them.

Following the 1970 calving season, the biologist again contacted me to advise that he had recorded 90 of those elk killed by grizzlies. He also described how the bears killed all 11 calves from a small group of elk plus several of the adults.

He voiced his belief that the Craigheads’ failure to even mention bears killing the Madison-Firehole Elk was the result of their promoting the “sick and crippled” theory of academic biologists.

He also said the Craigheads were tagging and studying only those grizzlies habituated to garbage dumps rather than the wild grizzlies in remote areas in the Park. They opposed the Park Superintendent’s plan to close the remaining garbage dumps and eliminate black bear feeding by the public to cut down increasing injuries to humans. They recommended leaving two major garbage dumps open for another ten years plus shooting elk and bison to feed the bears.

But despite their efforts to discredit YNP officials, those same officials refused to issue their 1971 permit to conduct research in the Park which ended their bear study.

Outfitter Charges Hornocker Claims Not True

Back in 1964, the Craigheads’ assistant, Maurice Hornocker, secured his grants and hired local lion hunter Wilbur Wiles to study the relationship between mountain lions and deer in Idaho Unit 26 on Big Creek in the Idaho Primitive Area*. (*now the Frank Church Wilderness)

Deer and elk populations in Unit 26 had been severely depleted by multiple deer harvests and 90-day either-sex deer and elk seasons extending into the deep snows of mid-December. The ratio of mountain lions to deer far exceeded the healthy one lion per 360 deer that Leopold had recorded in his 1933 study in California.

Despite decreased hunter harvests, deer numbers continued to decline each year, and the study offered the opportunity to confirm whether excessive lion populations were a primary cause of that decline.

As the 3-year study unfolded during the 1965-1967 winters and was then extended for two more years, an ongoing letter-writing feud between outfitter Steve Jordan and Hornocker was published in the Idaho Statesman. Hornocker claimed the Unit 26 deer and elk populations were increasing while F&G helicopter counts continued to report sharp declines.

Governor Requests Evaluation of Big Creek Study

Idaho Governor Don Samuelson provided Rob Donley and me with a copy of Hornocker’s third-year and then his five-year study report, and asked us to investigate and report back to him with an evaluation by June 1, 1969. The June 1969 Outdoorsman contains a copy of our report as well as an article entitled, “The Great Cougar Controversy.”

In his research, Hornocker reported that 25-30 lions were captured repeatedly in the 200-square-mile study portion of Unit 26. He classified them as “residents” and said that any lion they captured only one time was considered a “transient.”

Rob Donley and I removed two large male cougar traveling together several miles outside of the study area boundary in Unit 27 (see photo below). Only one of them had been captured and tagged by the researchers once but was never seen by them again.

Donley

 

These two adult male cougar had been preying on an isolated group of elk in my Unit 26 outfitter area that was inaccessible to hunters once Thanksgiving week or earlier snows closed the passes to horseback travel. The curious lions ran right at us and then tried to kill Rob’s dogs but that’s another story.

I mention this incident on the Unit 27 side of the pass in Marble Creek to point out one of several flaws in Hornocker’s study reports. He coined the term “Mutual avoidance behavioral mechanism,” to claim that male lions never fight each other or travel with one another.

During an earlier year, I discovered evidence of two cougar fighting in the summer, with one bleeding steadily. Hornocker’s coined phrase was another example of alleged but non-existent “social regulation” that was claimed by Allen and Mech, the Craigheads, and Canada’s wolf advocate-environmentalist, Douglas Pimlott.

Highly Inflated Deer Estimates in Big Creek Study

Instead of searching for facts to prove or disprove the hypothesis that uncontrolled cougar benefited deer and elk, Hornocker ignored the radical decline of both species reported in IDFG helicopter counts. He substituted his own set of “estimated” deer figures claiming that both prey populations were increasing dramatically.

In 1967 he claimed the Unit 26 deer population had increased from 1,099 in 1966 to 2,595 in 1967 yet a four-day IDFG helicopter count in 1967 recorded only 466 total deer. He also claimed there was a ratio of 163 deer and 71 elk to each one of the 25-30 resident cougar.

On a “biomass” (relative bulk) basis, this equaled 358 deer – almost exactly the healthy 360 deer per cougar Leopold had reported in California back in 1933.

But if Hornocker had multiplied the claimed 163 deer and 71 elk times even the minimum estimate of 25 resident cougar, it would have required a minimum of 4,075 deer plus 1,775 elk to equal his claimed healthy balance.

Conflicting Claims Re: Cougar “Social Regulation”

The February 1970 issue of Field and Stream included an article by Associate Editor Ted Trueblood praising Hornocker’s “myth-shattering conclusion” that “predation by lions is inconsequential in determining ultimate numbers of elk and deer.”

Trueblood described Wiles’ and Hornocker’s actions as the hounds trailed and then treed a lion that had killed a cow elk. He then offered conflicting statistics in a confusing attempt to support Hornocker’s false claim.

But 30 years later, following 10 years of research, two of Hornocker’s associates, Logan and Sweanor, repeatedly emphasized in their 2001 book “Desert Puma,” that mountain lions do not socially regulate. Yet in the material Hornocker has published and in his recent media interviews, he has continued to insist that the lions he studied in Big Creek did socially regulate themselves – allowing their prey to increase and prosper.

Starved Cougar Illustrates Lack of Prey

I stopped outfitting and guiding at the end of the 1966 season because my conscience would not allow me to charge hunters for such a slim chance to kill a branch-antlered bull elk or even a mature buck. The lack of deer was emphasized when Rob and I discovered a dead female cougar in Unit 27 that had left an odd track in the snow.

About one foot of the tip of its tail was encased in ice and had dragged in the snow and in the icy water when it waded out in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River to scavenge a deer skeleton. The skeleton, wedged in a pile of debris below the Mahoney airstrip, had already been picked clean by ravens, and we followed the emaciated cat’s back-trail for several miles for more clues to its fate.

It had hunted two side drainages from the mountain top to the river, but we did not see any deer tracks in either drainage. During the 1950s, several hundred deer were harvested and hauled from the Mahoney airstrip each season by pilots flying from dawn ‘til dark.

But in 1962, the deer harvest from Mahoney declined dramatically and I suggested the Commission stop selling the extra deer tags in Units 26 and 27, and cut a month off the tail end of both deer seasons. I was helping IDFG with a Bighorn sheep study at the time and I explained that the hunter-killed deer I examined had no fat reserves resulting from constant hunter-caused stress in a 90-day season, and that extra stress would cause many more to die even during only a moderately severe winter.

However Big Game Manager Roger Williams insisted that killing even more female deer would solve the problem. The Commissioners approved his suggestion to add a Middle Fork Antlerless tag in Unit 27 and leave the either-sex season open through mid-December in both units.

That allowed a hunter to kill three deer in Unit 27; four deer by also hunting in its Big Creek tributary; and five deer by also hunting in one of several other selected Idaho units. My USAFE courses in Forestry and Zoology had not prepared me for this massive exploitation of wild game, yet hunters could also kill up to five more mule deer by hunting in Nevada after they killed their limit in Idaho.

This is Pertinent Information – Not “Ancient History”

On Jan. 28, 1970, about 300 hunters attended an Idaho Senate Resources Committee hearing with one-third forced to stand or spill out into the Capitol rotunda hall. Although Chairman Sen. Warren Brown kept calling F&G “damage control” witnesses to praise the agency’s “professionalism,” hunters who had been waiting for several hours to testify angrily demanded he call the witnesses in the order they had signed up.

Like other politicians then and now, who protect the bureaucratic agencies and special interests rather than the citizens who elected them, Brown continued to try to limit testimony that described the wanton destruction of the wildlife resource. But when the marathon hearing ended at 1:00 A.M., the attendance by 300 citizens had convinced a majority of the Senators it was time to find facts.

Multiple Harvests of Bears & Lions Restored Game

A three-year performance audit by Legislative Auditor James Defenbach reported F&G had knowingly published highly exaggerated big game harvest statistics during the preceding 10 years. The F&G Director was forced to resign by a new Governor, and Joe Greenley, the new Director, ordered the inflated 10-year harvest statistics be replaced with only the actual kills reported by hunters.

He either closed or dramatically shortened deer and elk seasons, and eliminated all female and juvenile elk and deer harvests except in Idaho’s Panhandle. He also implemented multiple bear and lion harvests statewide to increase the number of surviving juvenile deer and elk.

During the 1972 Idaho legislative session, a bill authorizing payment of a $7.50 bounty on 10,000 Idaho coyotes over a two-year period passed the House by a 44-22 vote. Based on inflation to 2015, that would equal $42.45 per coyote today but the bill was held in the Senate Committee for several weeks while IDFG and other lobbyists mounted a massive campaign to defeat it.

Finally, according to woolgrower Senator John Peavey, the F&G Director agreed to double the amount spent by the Department for federal predator control, and the bounty bill failed 18-17 in the Senate based on that promise. But only $10,000 was added to the $25,000 paid to federal Wildlife Services for coyote control, and it was used solely to settle a dispute about whether coyotes or drownings were killing deer on Dworshak Reservoir ice.

Gubernatorial hopeful Peavey then sent a letter to the Idaho Statesman explaining why he had voted “no” on the coyote bounty. He said that he had talked with IDFG Director Joe Greenley, and, “unlike his predecessor, Greenley believed in active predator management as a tool in providing adequate game for Idaho hunters.”

But in a Statesman Guest Editorial, Greenley responded: “Although predator control has long been an integral part of wildlife management in Europe, it is a sensitive subject, particularly among ‘wildlifers’*…Most American wildlifers have a strong ecological background embracing the full diversity of the natural world – they are hesitant over extreme single value alteration of the biotic community for game.” (* “Wildlifer” is the name of the Wildlife Society’s weekly newsletter to its members who also call themselves “wildlifers”)

The Exploitation of Wild Game in North America

Back in 1946, Ira Gabrielson resigned as the first Director of the new U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to accept the position of President of the nonprofit Wildlife Management Institute (WMI). The manufacturers and service providers who had depended on Uncle Sam buying their products during four years of war, now realized they had to create a vast new market for their products.

They became major financial supporters of the WMI and Ira Gabrielson returned the favor by directing WMI staff studies of the organization, authorities and programs of 31 state and two Canadian game agencies. Was it just a coincidence that the widespread WMI recommendations said excessive populations of game were destroying the habitat in remote areas, and non-resident hunters must be invited to harvest the surplus animals?

State Game Warden Expresses Concerns

In Idaho’s Twenty-First Biennial Report, the State Game Warden cited a 100% increase in non-resident hunters just from 1945-46 and warned that our big game is limited and expendable. He wrote: “The nation has had the greatest sales program for hunting that so far has been experienced. Resorts, dude ranches, airlines, railroads, sporting arms manufacturers, sporting magazines, and many other concerns have used game popularity in their advertising. Game and fish are definite attractions meriting public enthusiasm, but it is time to give some thought to how long we can meet the increasing demand.”

Now fast forward to 1970. After involving powerful international organizations, that he helped create and fund, in North American game management, Gabrielson retired as WMI President to head up its Board of Directors. He was replaced by Daniel Poole who, in his 1973 annual WMI workshop, criticized biologists for their failure to sell their “management” programs to the public.

The North American Wildlife Policy of 1973

Then Poole introduced Wolf Professor Durward Allen to present the “North American Wildlife Policy of 1973.” The New Policy emphasized the protection of all predators by either giving them game status or by prohibiting “indiscriminate” predator control.

In addition to outlawing predator bounties, and the use of poison except in emergencies such as a rabies epidemic, the 1973 Policy refused to recognize the need for predator control to benefit populations of game. Instead, it stressed the need to provide prey species to feed the predators which, it said, have high esthetic values.

Now fast forward 23 more years to the Idaho Deer and Elk Teams supposedly formed to halt declines in deer and elk populations and hunter harvests. On June 24, 1996, when Upper Snake Regional Biologist Ted Chu said one of the purposes in their Mission Statement was, “To provide elk and deer to feed bears and other large predators,” it was endorsed unanimously by all of the Team Biologists.

But when sportsman Elk Team Member Bill Chetwood suggested providing elk and deer for hunters to harvest (per I.C. Sec 36-103), none of the IDFG Biologists agreed and Facilitator John Gahl stated: “We’re not going to use anything that’s in the law as part of our Vision Statement or our Mission Statement.”

In the preceding 58 Outdoorsman Bulletins I’ve provided numerous examples of biologists’ refusal to control predators to protect and perpetuate game species. For a period of several years during the 1970s, desperate biologists even blamed families that vacationed together and harvested healthy wild game for the freezer for the lack of game caused by the biologists’ continued adherence to the WMI 1973 Wildlife Policy.

Hunting in Idaho Has Become a Sport for the Wealthy; Nearly Half of Households Can’t Afford Licenses, Tags

In their “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Reflections From a Non-Hunter” presentation to the Wildlife Management Institute Annual Workshop in Phoenix in 2008, and to the Idaho Chapter of the Wildlife Society meeting in Moscow in 2009, IDFG employees Michele Beucler and Gregg Servheen presented the following 2007 survey results:

Hunter retention rates declined sharply in the nearly half of Idaho households with annual incomes of $40,000 or less.

Zero decline in hunter retention of individuals from households with $100,000 or more annual income.

Instead of charging the hunter and fisherman the $11 in 1969 license and tag fees plus just the inflation since then (a 2007 grand total of $62.15), and using all of that money to manage our wild game and fish resource, he or she is now charged nearly three to four times that much* to hunt the same wild game species – but with even lower populations and harvests. (* depending on whether a $124.25 sportsmen’s package is purchased initially or more expensive licenses and tags are purchased separately)

Then the extra millions of dollars are robbed from license fees and used to help support the dozens of former “nongame” biologists on the Fish and Game payroll who refuse to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage our wild game as the law requires.

Instead of bragging about the travesty of so-called wolf recovery, they should be held accountable for feeding Idaho’s endangered Selkirk caribou to bears, mountain lions and wolves and for introducing multiple diseases into Idaho wildlife where there is no evidence they ever existed in or were spread by Idaho’s wild animals before.

The Compass Guaranteed Non-game “Management” Would Remain IDFG’s Number One Priority

In 2000, after 10 years of changing all state game agencies’ top priority from hunting and fishing to non-game activities, the [International] Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (later shortened to AFWA) used new Idaho F&G Director Rod Sando to implement “The Compass” – a 15-year Management Plan to make that change permanent.

During a 2001 Commission meeting, Natural Resource Policy Bureau Director Tracey Trent introduced Michele Beucler to the Commissioners. She gave them a presentation claiming that 85% of Idaho citizens supported increased emphasis on non-hunting/fishing as outlined in The Compass, while only a few “Utilitarians” supported only hunting and fishing and a few “Greens” did not support either.

Conspiracy to Get Hunters to Approve “The Compass”

Although Commissioners Nancy Hadley, Gary Power and John Watts supported The Compass, the other four Commissioners did not. Watts made a motion for outgoing Chairman Hadley to appoint two or three Commissioners to help Deputy Director Mansfield and Tracey Trent “tweak” The Compass to make it more acceptable to license buyers.

The motion passed and Hadley appointed Power and Watts and gave them instructions to make the necessary changes and get it back to her before her term as Chairman expired. On Dec. 23, 2004, with assistance from Mansfield and the two Commissioners, Tracey Trent changed the Funding and other portions of the controversial document, “The Compass,” in order to get license-buying sportsmen’s approval for the full Commission to pass it as follows:

“Page 8 – Funding
The Department’s main funding source comes from one segment of the population – hunters and anglers – primarily through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. This money has been – and will continue to be – used to manage fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing.

The Department will not use hunting and fishing license fees to meet all the desires of the public, other agencies and local governments for managing fish, wildlife and native plants.” (emphasis added)

“Page 10 – Objective
Maintain or improve game populations to meet the demand for hunting, fishing, and trapping.
? Manage predation to achieve a balance between game and predator populations.
? Collaborate with tribes, private landowners, and agencies to manage populations and harvest for long-term sustainability.

“Page 17 – Objective
Improve funding to meet legal mandates and public expectations.
? Continue to use revenue generated by hunters, anglers, and trappers for programs that benefit hunting, fishing, and trapping.”

The stipulations on Pages 8 and 17 that revenue generated by hunters, anglers and trappers would be used for programs that benefit hunting fishing and trapping are uniform and understandable.

Yet 2-1/2 years later, on July 3, 2007, F&G Commission Vice Chairman Wayne Wright, and IDFG Director Cal Groen told an ad hoc Legislative funding committee that Nongame funding provided only 25% of the money F&G was spending on non-game, and the rest was being taken from sportsmen license fee funding of law enforcement, fish stocking and other hunting and fishing programs. Then Director Groen candidly admitted this had been going on for the previous 15 years.

The license fee and predator-prey balance promises written into “The Compass” were not worth the paper they were printed on. The obvious solution was to stop stealing sportsmen’s license fees and reduce their license, tag and permit costs by at least 50% so the less affluent families could continue to hunt and fish. But that was not what Beucler had in mind.

Not long after the F&G officials confessed they had been robbing the excessive license fees – which forced lower income families to give up hunting – Beucler was recommending to The Wildlife Management Institute and the Wildlife Society that they recruit non-sportsmen to replace the license buyers who were being forced out of hunting by excessive costs and lack of game to harvest.

In 2010, as the new President of the Organization of Wildlife Planners, Beucler wrote an article titled, “The Death of Wildlife Management?” in which she proposed an end to wildlife management that benefits hunters and fishermen. She wrote, “Hunting and fishing will remain important threads of the American Tapestry regardless of how many people participate,” and cited false figures to claim that the percentage of licensed hunters and fishermen was already declining rapidly.

That, of course, proved to be another lie when the national survey showed an increase of 9% for hunters and 10% for combined hunters and fishermen. Yet she recently worked closely with Director Moore to have the Management Assistance Team teach IDFG employees to prepare for changes that reduce the number of hunters.

Legislative Investigation That Was Never Completed

The January 2009 Outdoorsman No. 32 published the unlawful use of $231,338 in P-R/D-J funds by just two IDFG Bureaus in FY 2008. An Idaho Legislator contacted me at the beginning of the 2010 session and said the Legislature was investigating F&G’s illegal use of Federal Excise Tax funds as a match for nongame/endangered species projects, and asked for additional proof.

I obtained and photocopied public documents that showed the illegal use of $427,534.00 in sportsman excise tax dollars in FY 2008 to match nongame and endangered species funding. In the June-Aug 2010 Outdoorsman No. 40, I published photocopies of these documents and described how alarmed Director Groen and Deputy Unsworth became when I requested additional information, and how they destroyed the original documents to hide their misuse of the P/R and D/J funds.

During the 2011 Legislative session I asked how the investigation was progressing but I’ve never received an answer.

Fee Increases since 1969 Nearly Triple Inflation Cost In order to understand what has happened since 1969, please study the following chart carefully, including the footnotes and the few comments. Once you understand what has happened, you will realize what must be done.

CostToHuntGraph

Except for a handful of game preserves with limited elk hunting, from 1966-1970 my wife and I and our older sons could each hunt and fish in any open season in Idaho for everything except trophy species for $11. It cost only $8 for my wife and sons who normally didn’t hunt elk, but if they chose to kill a second deer in limited units, they could by paying another $2.

When Joe Greenley was rebuilding Idaho’s wild game and fish populations during the 1970s, changing license & tag fees from $11 to about the $21.76 Consumer Price Index Cost of Living increase in 1979 was proper. But charging hunters to hunt lions and bears which had formerly cost nothing was not.

And giving muzzleloader and longbow hunters special early and late seasons when the game was far more vulnerable, and charging them extra money for that special privilege harvest opportunity established a bad precedent.

When Jerry Conley replaced Greenley for the next 15 years, and then a growing list of subsequent Directors replaced each other, Game Biologists threw science out the window and began creating all manner of bonus special privilege hunts/seasons requiring special weapons permits and/or drawings with a limited number of permits awarded.

Abundant Game Numbers = Abundant Nongame

For the first half of the 20th Century when so-called sport hunters and dedicated game wardens restored the game species that had been decimated by a small number of market hunters, everyone saw an abundance of non-game. It wasn’t until excessive game harvesting combined with refusal to maintain a healthy ratio of game to its predators, that declines in both game and non-game species became evident.

But instead of restoring that healthy balance, biologists continued to increase the hunting and fishing fees, but use the extra money in a futile attempt to rebuild nongame numbers by manipulating habitat.

Brave Commission Action Does Not End Corruption The ray of hope in all of this was when the F&G

Commission forced Deputy Director Jim Unsworth to seek employment elsewhere, and forced Director Moore to tell his employees to stop “stirring the pot” and obey the law to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage Idaho’s wild game and wild fish for hunters, fishermen and trappers to harvest (see Aug-Oct 2014 Outdoorsman No. 57).

I have provided all of the foregoing information to try to make the reader understand that these two corrective actions by the Idaho Commission were still not enough to dismantle the corrupt system that is dedicated to destroying our heritage of hunting (i.e. for all but the few wealthy individuals who may continue to support it).

The Commission’s next opportunity to restore IDFG’s lawful mandate to manage wild game and fish for hunting, fishing and trapping began as Agenda Item 13 in the May 20, 2015 Commission meeting in Lewiston. It is the process of re-writing the State Wildlife Action plan for another 10 years and Sagle resident Ed Lindahl recommended adding a statement describing the Department’s first priority as “providing surpluses of wild game and fish for those who hunt, fish and trap in Idaho.”

In March of 2004 when Rita Dixon gave her presentation about the federal grant money her group had already received to prepare Idaho’s first State Wildlife Action Plan, Commissioner John Burns asked her if any sportsman license dollars would be used. She responded that the matching funding had already been secured but failed to answer his question or mention the alleged source(s) or amounts of the alleged matching funds.

In the Lewiston Commission meeting on May 20, 2015, she bragged to the Commissioners about the millions of dollars in matching funds her nongame group has received to match the dollars it has received from the feds.

But what she failed to tell Burns in 2004 or the Commission in May 2015 was how much of that matching money has been stolen from license fees and excise taxes paid by Idaho sportsmen – a deliberate violation of the Congressional legislation that created the grants.

Despite all of the gimmicks (from “chipmunk” donations to specialty license plates) only a tiny handful of nongame supporters are willing to donate any money for their special privilege wildlife viewing areas, etc. Managing nongame endangered wildlife is NOT a function of a GAME Department and should be transferred to the Governors Office of Species Conservation – the Idaho agency that is legally mandated to handle them.

If you understand the chart comparing the radically increased fees charged to sport hunters and anglers with what they should be charged according to the Consumer Price Index, you must realize that state game management agencies are being destroyed from within by nongame and non-hunting activists posing as biologists.

Do not be deceived by their false claims that this expensive program was forced on them by the federal govt. Remember it was non-hunting activists posing as Idaho & Montana biologists who allowed wolf introduction.

Until we stop letting the non-governmental groups from the Washington, D.C. beltway and the MAT training center in West Virginia dictate what we manage and how we manage it, our Constitutional right to hunt, fish and trap will continue to be destroyed.

If enough concerned sportsmen from each state would take the time to write their elected representatives in Congress and ask them to stop voting to appropriate funding for the State Wildlife Grants, it could restore our hunting and fishing heritage. Why not give it a try?

More Research Supporting Fact No. 1

Dr. Val Geist’s study conclusion of wolves’ return to Vancouver Island resulted in the annual black-tailed deer harvest declining from about 25,000 to only 3,000.

The same scenario that has occurred with wolves in Idaho played out in Southern Alberta about 15 years earlier when the northern wolves repopulated SW Alberta. Initially they found abundant prey, but Canadian researcher Mark Hebblewhite spent 10 years documenting the destruction of the area’s big game herds by wolves in the Banff ecosystem.

He recorded a 90% decline in elk numbers, slightly less in moose populations, and extinction of several caribou herds. And after half a century of research involving Canadian wolves, Tom Bergerud’s undisputed conclusions that uncontrolled wolves destroy herd after herd of woodland caribou, are accepted even by those who advocate keeping big game herds in a predator pit.

To learn why Dr. Charles Kay insists Isle Royale Research is not appropriate; to read the claim that moose were originally transported by train and boat to Isle Royale; and to read Fact #2 – Why Wolves Cannot Exist near Human Settlements, don’t miss “The Outdoorsman No. 60.”

Share

Pope Francis Speaks With Forked Tongue

ForkedTongue*Editor’s Note* – In the following article, it is not my intention to anger and ridicule those who choose to follow the Catholic religion. I am not anybody’s judge. What you do and believe is your business. However, when Pope Francis chose to air his dirty laundry by crafting (which I believe he did not write himself) an encyclical about terrible “human beings” destroying the earth and causing “Climate Change,” then I believe he has made himself available for ridicule of his behavior and to point out his beliefs being contrary to the real Word of God. His failure in his work to even once reference God’s plan of Salvation through the redemptive power of the Blood of Christ, while extolling the power found in “spiritually” connecting with animals and the environment, I believe is a true representation of the “religion” of the Vatican and not being true representatives of the Word of God.

So long as Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) wants to toss his hat into the political and fake scientific arena of climate change and the environment, he is fair game.

The Word of God tells me that those who engage in false teachings, lying, etc., I should express sharp disapproval or criticism of their behavior (rebuke), “that others also may fear.”(1 Tim 5:20)

Over the past several weeks, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time reading and researching Pope Francis’ LAUDATO SI’, an encyclical about what many believe to be man-caused Climate Change. I assure you it is NOT about Climate Change. It is about a promotion of the false teachings of the Catholic Church.

That this Encyclical even got any press is only representative of the fact that the Vatican holds the power of the Press and can, will and does get published anything it wishes. Such is the case. After all, Pope Francis is not any kind of authority on climate science or the environment for that matter. I read one man’s assessment of the Pope’s encyclical, a man who has been a member of the Catholic Church for many years: “…it is a meaningless and inappropriate topic, especially when presented as a Papal Encyclical.”

It is my opinion, based solely of the Word of God, that Laudato Si is, in many ways, words intended to mislead many hundreds of thousands of people, especially those who have already become victims of the Rulers in Dark Places.

Unless you are firmly grounded in God’s Word, I would highly recommend NOT reading this encyclical. As I said, I believe it is intended for the blind followers of the Catholic “religion.”

I would, however, like to take a moment to point out a few things written in this work. Whether you are a follower of the Catholic religion or not, gaining understanding of some of the words written here, should give you cause to question the leader of this earthly “religion.”

I do not believe it is simply a coincidence that the Pope uses the words “human being” 58 times in this work. A reader of this website graciously pointed out that he does not consider himself to be a “human being.” He and I are men.

Because the Vatican has historically done everything in Latin, as well as, until recent years, forbade the reading of the Bible (for the purpose of hiding from its followers the true meaning of God’s Word), then if we examine the Latin definition of “human” we learn that it means, “of or belonging to a man.” I assure you I belong to NO MAN.

To remain in context with this website, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, speaks often in his encyclical about the relationship of “human beings” with animals and in what he describes as our responsibility as “Christians,” because the Bible commands it, to care for all creatures because they are part of the Trinity of God. He passes the same responsibility, for much the same reasons, onto “Christians” to care for our “environment.” More on this nonsense later.

Whoever carries the title of “pope” is also titled as “Vicar of Christ,” meaning that the pope is Christ’s representative on earth. Utter nonsense. This is a self-proclaimed title that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. However, if Bergoglio is in such direct communication with God, because, according the Catholic teachings, none of us can pray to or be in contact with God, and if we pray we have to pray to Mary, then why doesn’t Bergoglio use the power of his encyclical to speak of the redeeming power of the Blood of Jesus Christ that was shed for our salvation?

He toils through many words to chastise “human beings” for destroying the earth and causing global warming but can only offer help by encouraging us to gain some kind of “spirituality” with the environment.

True believers in God’s Word, not the vicar’s words, know that all the problems the pope laments about that are destroying HIS earth, were taken care of on the Cross. Certainly, one must ask of whom does the Vatican worship that it seeks a “spirituality” with the environment and with animals?

The Bible also teaches that we are not to pray to anybody except God the Creator through is Son Jesus Christ. To pray to a woman, believing that Mary has better persuasive tactics with Jesus, is not only ridiculous, but it is anti-Biblical, anti-Christ. And yet, Bergoglio’s church, which questionably sees the woman described in Revelation 12: 1 and 2 as their blessed mother Mary. But what goes beyond bizarre is that Bergoglio says that Mary, “is the Mother and Queen of all creation,” and that for that reason we must all bow down and worship the creation and not the creator? Blasphemy!

Bergoglio writes: “For Christians, believing in one God who is trinitarian communion suggests that the Trinity has left its mark on all creation. Saint Bonaventure went so far as to say that human beings, before sin, were able to see how each creature “testifies that God is three”. The reflection of the Trinity was there to be recognized in nature “when that book was open to man and our eyes had not yet become darkened.”

What we see here is exactly what is found throughout the entirety of the pope’s encyclical. The overwhelming majority of words written and the attempt at substantiation, are done so only by Catholic teachings, the words of men, and almost never by the Word of God. Again I ask, who does this man and the Vatican worship? Why does the Vatican see need to support the false teachings of man-caused Climate Change?

Nowhere in God’s real words, does the Creator even suggest that animals share in the gift of the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Nowhere! Claiming otherwise is blasphemous to God.

Evidently Jorge Bergoglio is encouraging his followers, and anyone else interested in following his anti-Biblical teachings, to become “spiritual” with animals and the creation. To him, it’s the only way we can save the planet. For me, the Bible I read promises that this planet will not be destroyed. I can’t say the same thing for those who scoff at God’s Word and deliberately teach against it and/or bastardize God’s Word.

Below, I am posting a portion of Pope Francis’ words for you to read and hopefully gain some real understanding. I am going to embolden certain words and phrases for no other reason than what I hope will give you reason to stop, ask questions and seek answers.

III. ECOLOGICAL CONVERSION

216. The rich heritage of Christian spirituality, the fruit of twenty centuries of personal and communal experience, has a precious contribution to make to the renewal of humanity. Here, I would like to offer Christians a few suggestions for an ecological spirituality grounded in the convictions of our faith, since the teachings of the Gospel have direct consequences for our way of thinking, feeling and living. More than in ideas or concepts as such, I am interested in how such a spirituality can motivate us to a more passionate concern for the protection of our world. A commitment this lofty cannot be sustained by doctrine alone, without a spirituality capable of inspiring us, without an “interior impulse which encourages, motivates, nourishes and gives meaning to our individual and communal activity”.[151] Admittedly, Christians have not always appropriated and developed the spiritual treasures bestowed by God upon the Church, where the life of the spirit is not dissociated from the body or from nature or from worldly realities, but lived in and with them, in communion with all that surrounds us.

217. “The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast”.[152] For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a summons to profound interior conversion. It must be said that some committed and prayerful Christians, with the excuse of realism and pragmatism, tend to ridicule expressions of concern for the environment. Others are passive; they choose not to change their habits and thus become inconsistent. So what they all need is an “ecological conversion”, whereby the effects of their encounter with Jesus Christ become evident in their relationship with the world around them. Living our vocation to be protectors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience.

218. In calling to mind the figure of Saint Francis of Assisi, we come to realize that a healthy relationship with creation is one dimension of overall personal conversion, which entails the recognition of our errors, sins, faults and failures, and leads to heartfelt repentance and desire to change. The Australian bishops spoke of the importance of such conversion for achieving reconciliation with creation: “To achieve such reconciliation, we must examine our lives and acknowledge the ways in which we have harmed God’s creation through our actions and our failure to act. We need to experience a conversion, or change of heart”.[153]

219. Nevertheless, self-improvement on the part of individuals will not by itself remedy the extremely complex situation facing our world today. Isolated individuals can lose their ability and freedom to escape the utilitarian mindset, and end up prey to an unethical consumerism bereft of social or ecological awareness. Social problems must be addressed by community networks and not simply by the sum of individual good deeds. This task “will make such tremendous demands of man that he could never achieve it by individual initiative or even by the united effort of men bred in an individualistic way. The work of dominating the world calls for a union of skills and a unity of achievement that can only grow from quite a different attitude”.[154] The ecological conversion needed to bring about lasting change is also a community conversion.

220. This conversion calls for a number of attitudes which together foster a spirit of generous care, full of tenderness. First, it entails gratitude and gratuitousness, a recognition that the world is God’s loving gift, and that we are called quietly to imitate his generosity in self-sacrifice and good works: “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing… and your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Mt 6:3-4). It also entails a loving awareness that we are not disconnected from the rest of creatures, but joined in a splendid universal communion. As believers, we do not look at the world from without but from within, conscious of the bonds with which the Father has linked us to all beings. By developing our individual, God-given capacities, an ecological conversion can inspire us to greater creativity and enthusiasm in resolving the world’s problems and in offering ourselves to God “as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable” (Rom 12:1). We do not understand our superiority as a reason for personal glory or irresponsible dominion, but rather as a different capacity which, in its turn, entails a serious responsibility stemming from our faith.

221. Various convictions of our faith, developed at the beginning of this Encyclical can help us to enrich the meaning of this conversion. These include the awareness that each creature reflects something of God and has a message to convey to us, and the security that Christ has taken unto himself this material world and now, risen, is intimately present to each being, surrounding it with his affection and penetrating it with his light. Then too, there is the recognition that God created the world, writing into it an order and a dynamism that human beings have no right to ignore. We read in the Gospel that Jesus says of the birds of the air that “not one of them is forgotten before God” (Lk 12:6). How then can we possibly mistreat them or cause them harm? I ask all Christians to recognize and to live fully this dimension of their conversion. May the power and the light of the grace we have received also be evident in our relationship to other creatures and to the world around us. In this way, we will help nurture that sublime fraternity with all creation which Saint Francis of Assisi so radiantly embodied.

V. CIVIC AND POLITICAL LOVE

231. Love, overflowing with small gestures of mutual care, is also civic and political, and it makes itself felt in every action that seeks to build a better world. Love for society and commitment to the common good are outstanding expressions of a charity which affects not only relationships between individuals but also “macro-relationships, social, economic and political ones”.[156] That is why the Church set before the world the ideal of a “civilization of love”.[157] Social love is the key to authentic development: “In order to make society more human, more worthy of the human person, love in social life – political, economic and cultural – must be given renewed value, becoming the constant and highest norm for all activity”.[158] In this framework, along with the importance of little everyday gestures, social love moves us to devise larger strategies to halt environmental degradation and to encourage a “culture of care” which permeates all of society. When we feel that God is calling us to intervene with others in these social dynamics, we should realize that this too is part of our spirituality, which is an exercise of charity and, as such, matures and sanctifies us.

232. Not everyone is called to engage directly in political life. Society is also enriched by a countless array of organizations which work to promote the common good and to defend the environment, whether natural or urban. Some, for example, show concern for a public place (a building, a fountain, an abandoned monument, a landscape, a square), and strive to protect, restore, improve or beautify it as something belonging to everyone. Around these community actions, relationships develop or are recovered and a new social fabric emerges. Thus, a community can break out of the indifference induced by consumerism. These actions cultivate a shared identity, with a story which can be remembered and handed on. In this way, the world, and the quality of life of the poorest, are cared for, with a sense of solidarity which is at the same time aware that we live in a common home which God has entrusted to us. These community actions, when they express self-giving love, can also become intense spiritual experiences.

VI. SACRAMENTAL SIGNS AND THE CELEBRATION OF REST

233. The universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely. Hence, there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face.[159] The ideal is not only to pass from the exterior to the interior to discover the action of God in the soul, but also to discover God in all things. Saint Bonaventure teaches us that “contemplation deepens the more we feel the working of God’s grace within our hearts, and the better we learn to encounter God in creatures outside ourselves”.[160]

234. Saint John of the Cross taught that all the goodness present in the realities and experiences of this world “is present in God eminently and infinitely, or more properly, in each of these sublime realities is God”.[161] This is not because the finite things of this world are really divine, but because the mystic experiences the intimate connection between God and all beings, and thus feels that “all things are God”.[162] Standing awestruck before a mountain, he or she cannot separate this experience from God, and perceives that the interior awe being lived has to be entrusted to the Lord: “Mountains have heights and they are plentiful, vast, beautiful, graceful, bright and fragrant. These mountains are what my Beloved is to me. Lonely valleys are quiet, pleasant, cool, shady and flowing with fresh water; in the variety of their groves and in the sweet song of the birds, they afford abundant recreation and delight to the senses, and in their solitude and silence, they refresh us and give rest. These valleys are what my Beloved is to me”.[163]

235. The Sacraments are a privileged way in which nature is taken up by God to become a means of mediating supernatural life. Through our worship of God, we are invited to embrace the world on a different plane. Water, oil, fire and colours are taken up in all their symbolic power and incorporated in our act of praise. The hand that blesses is an instrument of God’s love and a reflection of the closeness of Jesus Christ, who came to accompany us on the journey of life. Water poured over the body of a child in Baptism is a sign of new life. Encountering God does not mean fleeing from this world or turning our back on nature. This is especially clear in the spirituality of the Christian East. “Beauty, which in the East is one of the best loved names expressing the divine harmony and the model of humanity transfigured, appears everywhere: in the shape of a church, in the sounds, in the colours, in the lights, in the scents”.[164] For Christians, all the creatures of the material universe find their true meaning in the incarnate Word, for the Son of God has incorporated in his person part of the material world, planting in it a seed of definitive transformation. “Christianity does not reject matter. Rather, bodiliness is considered in all its value in the liturgical act, whereby the human body is disclosed in its inner nature as a temple of the Holy Spirit and is united with the Lord Jesus, who himself took a body for the world’s salvation”.[165]

236. It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”.[166] The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself”.[167] Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.

237. On Sunday, our participation in the Eucharist has special importance. Sunday, like the Jewish Sabbath, is meant to be a day which heals our relationships with God, with ourselves, with others and with the world. Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, the “first day” of the new creation, whose first fruits are the Lord’s risen humanity, the pledge of the final transfiguration of all created reality.… The law of weekly rest forbade work on the seventh day, “so that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your maidservant, and the stranger, may be refreshed” (Ex 23:12). Rest opens our eyes to the larger picture and gives us renewed sensitivity to the rights of others. And so the day of rest, centred on the Eucharist, sheds it light on the whole week, and motivates us to greater concern for nature and the poor.

VII. THE TRINITY AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CREATURES

238. The Father is the ultimate source of everything, the loving and self-communicating foundation of all that exists. The Son, his reflection, through whom all things were created, united himself to this earth when he was formed in the womb of Mary. The Spirit, infinite bond of love, is intimately present at the very heart of the universe, inspiring and bringing new pathways. The world was created by the three Persons acting as a single divine principle, but each one of them performed this common work in accordance with his own personal property. Consequently, “when we contemplate with wonder the universe in all its grandeur and beauty, we must praise the whole Trinity”.[169]

239. For Christians, believing in one God who is trinitarian communion suggests that the Trinity has left its mark on all creation. Saint Bonaventure went so far as to say that human beings, before sin, were able to see how each creature “testifies that God is three”. The reflection of the Trinity was there to be recognized in nature “when that book was open to man and our eyes had not yet become darkened”.[170] The Franciscan saint teaches us that each creature bears in itself a specifically Trinitarian structure, so real that it could be readily contemplated if only the human gaze were not so partial, dark and fragile. In this way, he points out to us the challenge of trying to read reality in a Trinitarian key.

240. The divine Persons are subsistent relations, and the world, created according to the divine model, is a web of relationships. Creatures tend towards God, and in turn it is proper to every living being to tend towards other things, so that throughout the universe we can find any number of constant and secretly interwoven relationships.[171] This leads us not only to marvel at the manifold connections existing among creatures, but also to discover a key to our own fulfilment. The human person grows more, matures more and is sanctified more to the extent that he or she enters into relationships, going out from themselves to live in communion with God, with others and with all creatures. In this way, they make their own that trinitarian dynamism which God imprinted in them when they were created. Everything is interconnected, and this invites us to develop a spirituality of that global solidarity which flows from the mystery of the Trinity.

VIII. QUEEN OF ALL CREATION

241. Mary, the Mother who cared for Jesus, now cares with maternal affection and pain for this wounded world. Just as her pierced heart mourned the death of Jesus, so now she grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor and for the creatures of this world laid waste by human power. Completely transfigured, she now lives with Jesus, and all creatures sing of her fairness. She is the Woman, “clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1). Carried up into heaven, she is the Mother and Queen of all creation. In her glorified body, together with the Risen Christ, part of creation has reached the fullness of its beauty. She treasures the entire life of Jesus in her heart (cf. Lk 2:19,51), and now understands the meaning of all things. Hence, we can ask her to enable us to look at this world with eyes of wisdom.

Share

The Long-Linked Chain of New-Science Ignorance and Brainwashing

ChainEvery newspaper that I read, every television show or newscast I watch, books, music, blogs, Facebook (although I don’t use it anymore), etc., for the informed, self-reliant. self-determined person, with an eye for direction upon The Creator, can rivet a long chain of linked events that should, but doesn’t, stir the very inner soul of man. Because most men are followers of and fearful of the “rulers in dark places” (Ephesians 6:12) and are unaware, the chain exists to drown life and the willfully blind. It is a roadblock that prevents seeing the Truth that can set a man free.

Where to begin?

I’ll set the stage with this. Recently a group of people, seemingly much more interested in the welfare of animals, particularly wolves, than man, met to: “…discuss, strategize and unite in building a coalition to address the need to reform wildlife management in America.”(emboldening added) And, what is it that this reformation intends to do? “…integrate the science of the 21st century and the ever-changing demographics and values of our citizenry.”(emboldening added)

This is “Progress.” The “science of the 21st century” is fake and useless garbage. The “ever-changing demographics and values” are corrupt and evil. Because a person’s values change, does not mean that change should be forced onto all others. Morals and ethics should be determined from the Word of God not some environmental group being propped up by the rulers in dark places.

It must be understood the meaning of such statements. These statements are not unique to just one wolf lovers’ group. It is the mantra of everything, but more specifically everything environmentalism. And it just didn’t happen. Nothing “just happens.” It is planned. The Vatican owns Environmentalism. Thus, one reason for the Pope’s recent Encyclical on Climate Change. The Vatican owns everything that intends to distort reality for its benefit at our expense.

One example of such is an organization called the National Training Laboratories(NTL). NTL is a byproduct of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Both Tavistock and NTL are “owned” by the Vatican. The purpose of NTL is to create “change agents.” These manufactured (brainwashed) “change agents” are purposed to go about changing the way we think. An example I just gave above is one organization whose mission is to “reform wildlife management,” shows the results of NTL and other Vatican-owned, Environmentalist and media manipulating efforts.

NTL’s vision, as stated, is the: “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.”

I’ve simply scratched the surface here. In order for readers to fully grasp the meaning of statements they are subjected to throughout the media, they must understand the source of those statements.

At present, all Environmentalist groups are making every effort to co-opt what was once the truth and “create and disseminate” it into THEIR new knowledge, their reformation of how wildlife management is discussed and carried out. It no longer matters that real scientific study confirms or denies. “Twenty-First Science” creates its own results.

Those who read the Bible should understand that this is a trick of Evil. We have been warned that in the Last Days, as Satan is allowed his grip on this earth, what was once right is now wrong, what was wrong is right, black is white, white is black, etc. Hard working, honest science, geared toward the discovery of scientific truths, has been replaced with Scientism (21st century science) – fake theories presented as “peer-reviewed” science.

With strong knowledge of the realities of deception, we can begin to look into the utter nonsense that is bombarding the non-thinking minds of Internet browsers, and all media readers. This inane approach to life’s logic is bizarre to the uncluttered mind. Take for example a representative of the perverse organization called the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HSUS attempted to get a referendum passed last year (2014) to effectively ban bear hunting in Maine. In response to a previous editorial, the representative of HSUS states that:

There’s a chance that some of the top-of-the-ticket Democrats who lost their races were adversely affected because they chose to oppose the ban on bear baiting. Large majorities of Democrats in the state favored the measure, and it didn’t help the candidates’ case that they supported an obviously inhumane and unsporting practice.

The actual editorial response makes as much sense as nothing. However, the point is here that this person, as with so many other people in this country, applaud the manipulation of the ballot box when it runs in their favor. When it does not, they scream for laws to stop “them” and not “us.” Somehow the bear referendum was defeated because democrats turned out in greater numbers but instead of voting HSUS’s way, did the typical, dishonest politician thing and lied to get votes. HSUS doesn’t do that? The idiocy is that this HSUS representative cannot see the difference. This is programmed idiocy by organizations founded on the principals of, “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.”

Richard Fernandez, of Pajamas Media, tells us that Liberals control the media and those things that are “allowed” to be talked about.

“The significance of this asymmetry is that liberals have the power to legitimize the existence of problems. They can alone enter things into evidence, as it were. Max Ehrenfreund, writing in the Washington Post, has a gathered a list of discontents from various publications that are now being talked about even in liberal circles, which means the population at large can talk about them now. Liberals set the agenda, when they talk about things going down the tubes then it’s on the agenda.

This tactic is all part of the plan to, “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” The only way for Environmentalism to work, is that the Environmentalists must control the media. With this control, it is much easier to control everything else.

Animal Rights and Environmentalism isn’t about saving animals, the air and water. It’s about control. And thus, this is why the Pope wrote his Climate Change Encyclical. He no more believes that man is causing the climate to change. What he does understand, because he is part of the creation of fake Climate Change, is that with a convincing of man-caused climate change, he, the Vatican, has more power to control the people, the land, and the water. It’s about control!

We have been warned before. Robert Fanning, author of “Yellowstone is Dying” warned us that Environmentalists with much money and power were taking over the fight to protect wolves and promote a “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice,” because “[his] goal of wolf introduction was to drive 30,000 ranchers from public lands.”

The latest and most bizarre of all revelations of the coming out of brainwashed, perverted Environmentalists, has to be the media’s coverage of Cecil the Lion. Jimmy Kimmel crying over a lion being killed and death threats directed at hunters on Facebook, while Facebook claims saying things like, “I’ll come to your Dallas Safari Club with an AK47 and grenade and wipe the whole lot of you out!,” doesn’t violate their Community Standards – the point being because it isn’t part of the controlling liberal media agenda. (See Richard Fernandez’s article linked to above.)

They don’t talk about murdering unborn babies and evidently don’t talk about death threats when it involves a lion, any animal or the agenda of the Liberal Party. Here’s a world gone stark-raving mad!

Tyler O’Neil, of Pajamas Media, writes:

Those convinced the Inquisition died out hundreds of years ago may be surprised by the emergence of the all-powerful Twitter mob. While those found in violation of the tenets of the pope were rarely actually tortured or killed, death threats and career-ending protests now target our modern apostates, with a vehemence rarely seen since the Salem witch trials.

The elevation of “animal rights” to a semi-sacrosanct belief has taken many casualties, like the freedom and livelihood of a certain American dentist — but more on that later. Religious liberty, historic tradition, and even — ironically — the lives of animals have been taken hostage by this all-consuming movement.

It’s unfortunate this writer hasn’t a clue of reality and the Inquisition. Perhaps it would be a bit more politically correct, even for faux “conservatives,” to call it the neo-inquisition for it is alive and well. We are all so immersed into it, while we sleep, that we cannot see it.

All of this stuff is demented, evil crap. To think otherwise, means you’ve got it bad. Seriously, can people NOT see it is WRONG to believe an animal’s life is more valuable than that of man? Evidently it is so. How sad. Can people NOT see that “creating new science” to fit the 21st century is wrong? It’s flat out wrong, driven by greed, deception and the striving for power. This is NOT the work of God, my creator.

There is a long chain. The links have all been connected. The chain is so long and heavy, we can no longer do anything about it. Instead, we choose to step over it and around it, pretending it’s not there. Doing so will not make it go away. God’s knowledge can break those links.

Share

Remembering Ski Jumping History

My brother Bob (in photo on the right) and I decided to collaborate on a book in which we recalled, from our own perspectives, the years we spent growing up and becoming ski jumpers. We felt it a good thing to assist in the preservation of history of a sport that, at least in most states, has died.

We also decided that after writing the book, we would donate all proceeds to the Ski Museum of Maine and the Maine Ski Hall of Fame, of which Bob is a member.

This past Saturday, at a festival here in my hometown, Bob and I were at the Ski Museum of Maine booth, selling and autographing copies of the book. It was a very successful and enjoyable time. We met some old ski jumping friends and their families with some surprises along the way.

If you would like some more information about the book and would like to purchase a paperback copy or Kindle book, visit this Amazon link. You can also purchase a book through Barnes and Noble or at the Ski Museum of Maine store.

TomRemBook

Milt Inman Photo

Share