April 16, 2014

“I Didn’t Think a Bear Would Really Attack Anybody”

And herein lies one of my biggest complaints about wildlife managers, animal rights ignoramuses and media. A Florida woman, upon spotting several bears in her yard went looking for her two kids who had just left the house on bicycles. One bear attacked the woman.

There’s a video below about the latest efforts to find and kill the bears. Here’s a link to a comment in a separate article from a neighbor about the bear attack.

“I am really surprised. I didn’t think a bear would really attack anybody,” said neighbor Argun Valay.

One has to ask why this person would say, “I didn’t think a bear would really attack anybody.” Perhaps it is because the repeated crap sandwich that has been fed to people all over the need people seem to have had driven into their brains that bears are harmless. My God! All animals have the potential to inflict harm onto humans. These people don’t trust the most intelligent of the animal species, man, but they seem to want to trust a bear to a point a person states they didn’t think a bear would really attack someone.

Maybe it’s time to change up the stupid talking points and teach people the truth about bears, predators and all wild and even domestic animals.

New Jersey Bear Lovers Blame Attacks on Poor Garbage Management

A Florida woman is attacked by a bear and dragged by the head toward the woods while taking out her garbage. So that must make Save NJ Bears absolutely brilliant? Why? Look at their outdated, incorrect, unsubstantiated, fairy tale “talking points” about why bears don’t attack people and if they do it’s because you didn’t take care of your garbage.


1. Peer-reviewed writings are worthless garbage these days. Anybody can find a “peer” who will endorse a piece of garbage written on toilet paper for the purpose of protecting bears or any other animal.

2. “The Nation’s Leading Experts?” Another worthless claim. Who decides who is an expert? This is much like Al Gore’s claim that the majority of scientists think he should make millions of dollars lying about global warming. This is just a dishonest misleading of the public.

3. Governor Corzine’s staff probably wouldn’t know science if it hit them in the face. Give me a break. If Corzine (that’s the crook that should be locked up in jail for stealing millions of dollars from people) wanted to protect bears because he’s an idiot, he should have said so and not hidden behind or allowed the bear loving radicals to make claims about his staff’s “scientific review.” One has to wonder if that is the peer reviewed articles referred to above.

4. So now that the state of New Jersey has a governor that extremists on the left think is a conservation (he’s a fake one), the guy and his DEP Commissioner aren’t any good because they believe, as the majority of the world does, that hunting is an integral part of wildlife management.

5. Bear hunting, when implemented as a means of reducing bear populations, works very well and history has proven it. The problem with making such a bogus claim is that hunting of bears is so heavily restricted population control is not allowed to work.

6. Who can argue that deaths by bear attacks are unusual. Encounters with bears is very common though and with increased bear numbers and morons controlling the media telling them to tell everybody bears are cute and cuddly animals will only enhance the chances of another “rare” attack. Let’s hope it’s not your child. And again, I say, if the state of New Jersey and other states would allow for hunting and other methods to control too many bears, any bear hunt will reduce the chances of somebody’s kid getting mauled and killed by a bear.

7. Garbage containment is very important but it does not cause bears to grow in population when they get into it. That’s just another unproven myth by people clueless as to reproduction science concerning bears. When bears come out of hibernation, they are hungry and at times there is little natural food. When natural food is abundant bears seldom bother anybody’s garbage, or people for that matter. However, the concern here is about too many bears WHEN natural food dries up. We know food supply is cyclical and when it is absent the landscape, bears still have to eat. If they can’t get in your garbage they will take what they can get; even an adult woman in a small town in Florida.

8. Correct, and when their choice of cuisine is not available, they still got to eat.

9. It is poor advice to tell people that bears are fuzzy little creatures scared of humans. Generally speaking it is true bears will run from humans. But they won’t when they are hungry and on other occasions. If the occasion presents itself, do what is necessary to scare the bear off – “look big” and make noise, use bear spray or a gun. Better advice is to let people know to never trust ANY animal. Bear attacks can a do happen and so it is better to be prepared than be sorry because somebody insisted bears rarely bother people.

Where Maine Had Thousands of Deer Now Only a Few

Hal Blood recalls how he used to snowmobile at the north end of Moosehead Lake and see deer by the thousands. Now he sees only a few hundred.

And where Blood, a registered Maine Guide, ice fishes on state conservation land near Jackman at the northwestern corner of Maine, the deer are simply gone, he said.

“I used to see deer lying up in the ridges. That whole Moose River valley 25 years ago was unbelievable. But there aren’t any deer there any more,” Blood said.<<<Read More>>>

Denying Obvious Bear Facts to Protect Bears

Below is a teaser and link to an article about a debate in Colorado as to whether a spring bear hunt would have any effect on the bear population. It’s more than just odd that a member of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife says that since the spring bear hunt was canceled in 1999, harvest numbers of bears hasn’t changed. He therefore concludes a spring bear hunt wouldn’t change the harvest numbers. Unfortunately it’s not that simple.

The article fails to inform readers as to what has happened to the bear population in Colorado. If the same number of hunters go after twice as many bears, one would assume the success rate would go up. Figures are thrown around about harvest numbers. About the only thing to go on is that the article states that success rates for bear harvests jumped from 5% to 7%, giving as examples data from only one year and both year’s data came from hunting seasons 10 years apart. I think this is nothing more than playing games with numbers.

Nothing provided here can conclude anything, particularly what Colorado officials are trying to claim.

Shouldn’t the real issue here be about managing bears scientifically and with consideration as to how methods and management effect public safety? Unfortunately for all, bear management is driven by social demands from ignorant people who have no understanding of the facts of bear behavior.

I’m not advocating for or against a spring bear hunt. I’m advocating for responsible, proven, scientific bear management. If facts on the ground show there are too many bears for the habitat or that are causing too many conflicts with humans, something needs to be done about it.”Will believes it is a coincidence that black bear populations have climbed in Colorado in the 22 years since the spring bear hunt was abolished. He said he doesn’t think there is a cause-and-effect relationship.”<<<Read More>>>

Radical Groups Intend to Sue Idaho to Protect Canada Lynx

LynxintrapThe usual suspects, those lust-after wolf perverts at the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater, plan to do what they do best and sue the State of Idaho believing they are protecting the Canada lynx. These three groups will get what they want and probably more. My advice to Idaho is to just sit down and work out a plan that will essentially stop just about all trapping in lynx habitat. Going to court is a winless battle and a waste of money.

Gasp! I’m sure I will hear from the trappers and the haters of the environmentalist greedy pigs who lust more for money than saving any kind of wildlife, wanting to know why I am saying this. Just look at what happened in Maine. And where is Maine now in their trapping issues and how it pertains to protecting the Canada lynx? It is just surprising that Idaho has gotten away without making changes in their trapping regulations that are believed to help protect the lynx.

First, readers should understand that the Canada lynx, like the gray wolf, like the polar bear and God only knows how many other species romance, back-seat biologists cry out to protect, are not in any danger of being threatened, endangered, or extirpated. But in this day and age of new-science scientist and romance biologists, barking like underfed canines themselves, demanding “new understandings” and a “shift in paradigms” is there any wonder science and reality have absolutely nothing anymore to do with wildlife management. It’s about sick and often perverted dreams of “coexisting” with nasty animals. Best Available Science has become best romantic model.

So, then, what is it about? Mostly it’s about ignorance and what we see is the result of years of planned brainwashing. Is there any other explanation for human behavior that is……well, not human?

The real travesty in all of this is that either there is no real intent to protect the Canada lynx or the ignorance, the result of an inability to think beyond the next lawsuit, cannot fathom that while these environmentalist groups (and by God please let’s stop calling them “conservationists.” They just are not that at all.) wrongly believe that ecosystems would “balance” themselves if man would butt out, they themselves butt in like man does to change what is naturally happening. Does it make any sense? Of course not.

The cry is for wolves to be forced back into places they once lived a hundred and more years ago, with no consideration of the changes to the landscape in 100 years, while disregarding history. The perverse belief that wolves are magical and will create this fabricated “trophic cascade” of Nirvanic spender simply by existing will make everything a miracle or two, like the Candy Man can.

With the absence of critical thinking, it appears none of these shallow thinkers comprehends what competes with the Canada lynx and places it in greater danger of being run out of or killed off in Idaho. Because of the inbred hatred of the existence of the human species, they believe it is only humans that cause wildlife problems. Irrational thoughts of balanced wildlife proportions prevents them from existing in reality and therefore no thought is given to the fact that the wolves they long to protect and protect and protect some more, until everyone has 1 or 12 living in their back yard, kills far more Canada lynx than does a handful of trappers and yet the focus becomes the outrage that three lynx were incidentally captured in traps in the past two years. Two lynx were released unharmed and a third was shot by a trapper thinking the animal was a bobcat.

The “new understanding” and the “paradigm shifts” perpetuated by new-science scientism is this: Man is evil. Get rid of man and ecosystems will flourish and be in balance. However, the radicals can interfere in the management of all wildlife providing it is done their way.

There is no escape. Maine went to court over Canada lynx and the trappers lost; so did the lynx. The trappers always lose. But Maine had a way out. The Courts gave them a way out. Maine operates under a consent agreement, which is probably what Idaho will end up under. The judge in the Maine case said the terms of the consent agreement would remain in affect until such time that the state obtains an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). That was over 5 years ago and Maine has failed miserably in not pushing the USFWS for a permit. Such a permit would stop these kinds of lawsuits but bear in mind that the USFWS, an agency riddled with new-science scientists and balance of nature perverts, is going to place such ridiculous restrictions on trapping in order to get a permit, that the restrictions essentially end trapping.

As a good friend recently stated, it’s impossible to fight against a rigged system. The entire wildlife management industry is simply one small part of a corrupt and rigged system, enabled by “True Believers” and useful idiots with zero knowledge or understanding that they fight for all those things that are against them. Does that make any sense?

If it was suggested that we protect all predators and all animals at all costs and begin killing off the only problem these sick people think exists – humans, that they would do it? Do they not see this is precisely what they are asking for? Do they not realize that they are humans too? Do these same people believe the lie of protecting a desert tortoise is so valuable it is worth the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one man and his family? The potential exists here for something more costly.

It’s a rigged system and the system is so large, few can see it.

With a Choice Between “Bait” and Acorns, Bears Will Choose Acorns

Part of the argument the promoters of the anti bearing hunting referendum that will be before Maine voters in November is that baiting bears, to lure them into a shooting area, habituates bears to human conditions and trains bears to become reliant on man-provided food sources. Neither condition holds any merit.

The majority of those who oppose hunting bears, and in particular the use of bait, probably have never bear hunted or been involved with any kind of bear baiting stations. Therefore, one has to wonder where they gathered their information about bears. Nothing is more reliable for information than what comes from hunters and trappers with the experience and knowledge to completely understand the effort, tactics and strategies behind baiting bears.

In December of 2007, Bear Hunting Magazine published an article written by Bernie Barringer. This is what he had to say about baiting bears in competition with natural foods:

Where I live in Minnesota, the annual numbers of bears harvested can be directly linked to the quality and availability of the mast crop. And when we talk mast crop in Minnesota, we are primarily talking acorns and to a lesser extent hazelnuts.

Since there is no way to truly overcome the power of the acorn, we must simply be patient and wait it out. The bears will be back, we must just work hard to be ready for them.

As much as some would like to project their human emotions, i.e. their own lust for Dunkin’Donuts, candy, pastries and all junk food, it just is not a bear’s first choice in cuisine. So long as there is the presence of the natural food supply, the power of the acorn will spare the life of many bears who choose not to fill up on bait food.

Is This Just Adding Lipstick to Wolf Counting Procedures?

“The study’s primary objective was to find a less expensive approach to wolf monitoring that would yield statistically reliable estimates of the number of wolves and packs in Montana,” said Justin Gude, FWP’s chief of research for the wildlife division in Helena.

The typical method used to document the state’s wolf population focuses on ground and aerial track counts, visual observations, den and rendezvous confirmation and radio collaring to count individual wolves as required by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The verified count is used to fulfill Montana’s obligation to submit an annual wolf population report to federal authorities to ensure wolves are being properly managed above standards that could trigger relisting as an endangered species. Those counts must continue through Dec. 31, 2016.

“This new approach is not only good science,” Gude said, “it’s a practical way for Montana to obtain a more accurate range of wolf numbers that likely inhabit the state.”<<<Read More>>>Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks study on new methods of counting wolves.

When I Hear That Lonesome Whistle……..Damn the Train!

“The GPS collaring project is part of the overall $1 million, five-year Parks Canada-Canadian Pacific Railway joint action plan to try to prevent ongoing deaths of grizzly bears on the train tracks through Banff and Yoho national parks.Trains are the single biggest killer of grizzly bears in Banff National Park. There have been 14 known grizzly bear deaths on the railway in Banff and Yoho since 2000, but that number does not take into account bears that may be struck but never found.”<<<Read More>>>

PA Opts to Increase Bear Hunting Opportunity to Curb Growing Population of Bears

“The Pennsylvania Board of Game Commissioners Tuesday proposed opening up extended bear hunting opportunities to two additional WMUs in 2014.

Game Commission staff had recommended the additions based on increases in the bear populations within those WMUs.

WMU 4B also has had an increasing trend of human-bear conflicts, and several incidents in recent years involving home entry or injury to pets and people. Highway mortality of bears also has increased there, as has the bear harvest, which has increased by about 20 percent annually since 2003.”<<<Read More>>>

New Hampshire Tracks Moose

Warning! This video contains BS, unproven theories and oddly enough a bit of hope that New Hampshire moose biologists are approaching their jobs with the right attitude. I know. Sorry. I lost my mind for a minute.

New Hampshire is complaining about as much as a 40% drop in moose numbers “in some places” as it says in this PBS video, but doesn’t tell us the truth of what that means. As difficult as it was for the makers of this film to have to hear the New Hampshire biologist say their primary focus right now on moose mortality is the tick, it inevitably had to come back to global warming, even to the point of one man seeding signatures for a petition to urge the President to do something about carbon dioxide.

It appears obvious those in this video no little about the winter moose tick. While researchers can determine that ticks led to the death of moose, I believe they are just going on the assumption from what they have been fed for information that global warming is causing an increase in ticks. Warmer temperatures and snow, it says in this video plays into the hands of the ticks. But does it?

However, N.H. bios, it is said in the video, are going to allow science to determine what’s going on. Really? I hope so because it would be a first.

In the meantime, Maine is also collaring moose and tracking them in hopes of learning more about their moose, however, biologists there say the moose herd is doing well. In Minnesota, researchers are still saying they don’t know why moose are disappearing there and from last reports I have had they still refuse to consider a very large wolf population as a seriously contributing factor.

Oh, well. So long as these agencies keep getting money to research and never find solutions that would end the need for research, what else are we expecting for an outcome?

Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com