October 23, 2014

Wildlife “Science”- From Human Benefit to Buffoonery

*Editor’s Note* You MUST read the linked-to article but make sure your bladder is empty first and nothing is in your mouth.

Fifty-five years ago when I was searching for the best University wildlife biology School I could afford, Cornel’ was right near the top of high quality education schools and right near the bottom (actually not even on the list) of the list of schools I could afford. I chose Utah State University and have never regretted that decision for a moment. Thank you, Utah, for making that school available for me in those years. But back to Cornell.

Over the years, I met numerous Cornell graduates and found them to generally (I know I am stereotyping here) exude attitudes of superiority commonly seen in many Harvard and MIT graduates I have met.

During the 1980’s and 1990’s, Cornell research and notoriety in the wildlife area steadily mimicked the U of Wisconsin and Berkley publications and reports touting environmental extremism and animal rights nonsense. By the time of my retirement I no longer gave Cornell any thought other than to dismiss what they published or reports about what they were doing.

In 2005, five years after my retirement, I once again encountered Cornell and was astonished at how “far off the tracks” their snobbery and integration with federal bureaucrats had taken them. It seems the USFWS had obtained a “secret” fund of millions of dollars from Congress to “find and document” remaining Ivory-billed Woodpeckers that had recently been seen by “reliable” Southern birdwatchers. It was “secret” (oh how bureaucrats and politicians love such harmless intrigue as they seek to perfect our world in spite of our ignorance and stubbornness) because there was a chance that some ignorant redneck might find and destroy the “last” Ivory-billed Woodpecker (they are still extinct for over 75 years as I write) before federal protection and force could “save” them. Cornell was part of the (publicly-funded but :”secret”) “search and save” expeditions all over the South where their guesses as to where these “ancient” birds that “looked like pintails” (take note Southern woodland duck hunters) as they flew through southern swamps might find suitable habitat for planned federal woodpecker enhancements. Land was bought, land was eased and wooded wetland owners from N. Carolina and Florida to E. Texas were warned that they might one day harbor federally-designated Critical Habitat (yikes) for a bird once thought to be extinct!

When I wrote about this lunacy (if no hunter, trapper, farmer, or rural resident had seen or reported a “giant” woodpecker in 60+ years, the likelihood of federal bureaucrats or Cornell worthies finding even one were nil) I happened to mention how old-timers said the best habitat and draw for those big woodpeckers was a stand of trees purposely girdled and dying as swamps were being cleared for drainage and eventual farming. These trees were infested with insects in and under the bark (thereby drawing in lots of all sorts of woodpeckers from far and wide). I suggested (tongue-in-cheek) they try this old trick to see if there were any Ivory-bills in the neighborhood.

What I got in return from an Ivory-billed Woodpecker “Team Leader” who if memory serves was some sort of Cornell Grad student or Assistant Wildlife Professor was one of the nastier e-mails I ever received and that is saying something. The one “academic and scientific” comment I remember to this day from this person was something to the effect that if I “and my pig-farmer buddies” (oooohhh!) wanted to ruin the world he and science would stop us.

It has been 9 years since that little contretemps with Cornell. This morning, the following news report about Cornell, their campus and deer crossed my desk. Read it and enjoy the humor but consider the sadness of a once great wildlife school and how far it has fallen. It is as if an award winning actor like Laurence Olivier had taken to drink and late one Saturday night years later you turn on the TV and there he is stumbling through a Saturday Night Live skit mumbling his lines to the great amusement of the audience.

Cornell displays the fruits of environmental extremism and animal rights radicalism, and where they lead those that fall for their false values and agenda.

Jim Beers
21 October 2014

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

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

MDIFW Commissioner Opposes Question One

“You are not going to hunt them like deer. If you think you are going to walk in the woods and follow them you are wrong,” Woodcock said, as additional measures mentioned in the referendum question are needed to have a chance at getting a bear. “Hunting over bait is probably one of the best and most ethical ways to hunt. You have a choice of what you want to do.”<<<Read More>>>

Washington County Board Of Commissioners Officially Opposes Question 1

Source: Save Maine’s Bear Hunt

Posted on October 13, 2014

Proclamation

Opposition to Maine Referendum Question #1

“Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?

WHEREAS, Maine has one of the highest black bear populations at over 30,000, without effective hunting methods, the population will continue to dramatically increase; and,

WHEREAS, hunters spend an average of 15 days harvesting their quarry, and only one in four hunters are successful in their endeavors; and,

WHEREAS, monies spend during the hunting season directly and indirectly impact both the local and statewide economies, providing jobs and business opportunities for many rural residents; and,

WHEREAS, the Washington County Board of Commissioners agree that Referendum Question #1 would cripple Maine’s ability to manage its bear population as evidenced by statistical data showing that the use of bait, hounds, and traps are the most effective hunting methods that best control the population. The Board of Commissioners believes that the passage of Referendum Question #1 would compromise the safety of citizens with a potential increase of human-bear interactions; and,

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners strongly support the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council, Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologists, and Maine Game Wardens IN THEIR EFFORTS TO DEFEAT QUESTION #1; and,

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners views Referendum Question #1 as just the beginning of a more expansive effort to erode Maine’s rich hunting traditions;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board of Commissioners, at its October 8, 2014 Regular Meeting, officially opposes Maine Referendum Question #1 that will ban the use of bait, dogs, or traps in bear hunting.

Christopher Gardner, Chairman
John Crowley, Sr. Commissioner
Vinton Cassidy, Commissioner

Mexican Wolf Hybrid: No Lessons Learned From History

Because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fails to take into account any wolf history that dates prior to 1995, nor learn any lessons from the problems with wolves and wolf introduction in the Rocky Mountain States and Great Lakes Region, it is a fraudulent government entity.

I feel bad, in some ways for the Arizona fish and game department in trying to retain some kind of authority to manage all wildlife, but our fraudulent government is working to ensure this will never happen and that is why they refuse to limit the number of hybrid, semi-wild dogs they wish to pollute the landscape with. If the USFWS was an agency actually concerned with the wolf, they would be doing everything in their power to make sure that introducing hybrids into the landscape, which threatens the very existence of the Mexican wolf, never happens.

Two things, however, need to be in practice. First, USFWS personnel need to get out of their air-conditioned, padded office cells, get outside of their unchallenged comfort zones and into the real world and learn something about wolves where people have been dealing with wolves since….forever. But they don’t and they won’t. They didn’t with wolf (re)introduction in the Rockies. They fail to learn and so expecting something different is insanity.

Second, the fraudulent establishment has to actually be looking to protect the Mexican wolf subspecies, if there really is one that is real, and not ruin it with domestic dog genes. In part, to accomplish this, is to stop taking orders from the Environmentalists. Laughing here, because USFWS would be out of a job if these totalitarian socialists didn’t maintain their fraudulent status.

Neither of these two exist. The elites in Washington would never permit the USFWS to reach beyond their puppet strings.

A USFWS spokesperson said they have an obligation:

“We have met with hundreds of stakeholders representing a diversity of perspectives to ensure that our reintroduction of Mexican wolves takes their interests into account,” she said. “We deny the characterization of our meetings with our state partners as backroom deals.”

The notion of managing wildlife, which can ONLY be done with science, with social influences from communist organizations and ignorant people and groups that know nothing about anything scientific or wildlife, contributes heartily to the fraud of the USFWS. But one thing the spokesperson said that is true, but not in the way most people think, that there are no “backroom deals.” A deal implies that there were negotiations. There are no negotiations. History in this field and this fraudulent government agency, shows that they have already decided what is going to happen and there is nothing Arizona, New Mexico or anyone else can do about it.

The deck is stacked, the event is rigged and all “public participation” is a fraud based on a crooked Delphi technique of manipulation for preplanned outcomes.

Someday, maybe, but I doubt it, people will begin to understand this. Until they do….well, who won the football game last night?

Humane Society of the United States Attempts to Muzzle Maine’s Bear Experts, Maine People Overwhelming in Their Support of MEDIFW Participation

Press Release from Save Maine’s Bear Hunt:

Augusta, Maine- The Humane Society of the United States, a well funded, extreme animal rights, Washington D.C. lobbying organization here in Maine under the guise of a front group called Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, has asked for an emergency injunction to muzzle Maine’s bear experts, including biologists and game wardens at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The Humane Society of the United States has bankrolled the Yes on 1 campaign since early in 2013, according to public campaign finance reports filed with the Maine Ethics Commission.

“This is a blatant attempt by HSUS to suppress the most knowledgeable experts on Maine’s bear population from communicating with voters about the negative and dangerous impacts of Question 1 based on their scientific research for the past 40 years,” said James Cote of the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council. “The fact is, Maine people believe strongly that the biologists and game wardens at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife should have a voice on this issue. If this were an issue dealing with education, we would demand that the Department of Education weigh in, why is this any different?”

Recent polling, as of Tuesday, October 7th, shows overwhelming support of Maine people for the Department to have a voice on this issue. In a question posed to 500 Maine voters on October 5 and 6, 69% of respondents said that the Department should be allowed to comment, and only 18% of respondents said the Department should not be allowed to comment. 13% were undecided. (Question is attached to this release).

“Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting understandably wants to muzzle the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They don’t want the public to know that Question 1 removes their ability to control the bear population, and by doing so puts the public at risk. They certainly don’t want voters to know that their entire campaign has been financed by a Washington DC- based lobbying group. They know that once the public knows the facts about Question 1, they will reject it. The Department has an obligation to let the voters know the impact of Question 1: that it is bad for bears, and risky for people,” said James Cote.

By Funding Trophy Wolf Hunts, We’re Destroying Real Game Hunts

wolfutahIt seems just a short while ago that wolf (re)introduction happened – 1995 and 1996. A lot of water has passed under the bridge and as the water moved downstream, it has blended in with a lot of other water, not becoming lost but perhaps unrecognizable.

As most of you know, I’m writing a book about wolves. Actually it’s really not about wolves other than to point out the obvious behaviors of the animal. The book is more about the corruption. However, in working to put all this information together, I’ve come across some things that I had written about in which I had actually forgotten.

It really began in early 2009, when there was a glimmer of hope that wolves might come off the Endangered list and residents in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming could begin killing the animal to get it back down to 100 wolves as promised in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. What? Had you forgotten?

Around about that same time, I began reading about the plans Idaho was going to begin formulating in preparation for wolf hunts. I said then that utilizing a season for “trophy” wolf hunting would not work.

I wrote a five-part series that I know some of you have read, perhaps more than once, called “To Catch a Wolf” – an historical account of the extreme difficulty people had throughout history trying to control wolves to stop them from killing livestock and attacking people.

The real joke was when Idaho officials, in a fraudulent attempt to convince anyone who would blindly listen, that trophy hunting wolves, was going to protect the elk, deer and moose herds. This did not happen. As a matter of fact, it so much did not happen, that Idaho Fish and Game took to helicopters to gun down wolves in the Lolo Region because officials were willing to admit there was a wolf problem….or maybe they were just placating the sportsmen. They killed 5 wolves and yet somehow they want sportsmen to believe that a trophy hunting season will protect the game herds?

The myth here is that increasing or decreasing wolf tags will grow or shrink elk, deer and moose herds. Sorry, but controlling elk, deer and moose tags controls elk, deer and moose herds. Select-harvesting a handful of wolves does nothing to protect game herds.

Why, then, are Idaho sportsmen continuing to fund a fraudulent trophy wolf hunting season that may actually be causing the further destruction of the elk, deer and moose they so much wish to protect and grow?

On November 30, 2012, I wrote and published the following article. I took the liberty to embolden some statements I wish to now more fully draw your attention to.

Trophy Hunting Season on Wolves Destroying More Elk, Moose and Deer?

Recently I read a comment made by Bob Ream, chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) Commission, state that:

We [MFWP] have implemented more and more aggressive wolf harvests. We also increased lion harvests considerably this year.

The word aggressive is certainly an overused adjective used much in the same fashion as say a male peacock when he displays his tail feathers. In the context used in the quote above, I’m assuming Mr. Ream intended his use of the word aggressive to mean something to be proud of, a feat of accomplishment or something related. But when talking about wolves, killing, attacks, predation, hunting, trapping, disease and every aspect associated with gray wolves, “implementing[ed] more and more aggressive wolf harvests” kind of rings a bit hollow.

In its simplest form, wolves, at least under the existing conditions in most of Montana, Idaho and Wildlife, grow and expand at a rate of anywhere between 20% and 30%, I am told and have read as well. Estimates of wolf populations mean little except in political and emotional battles because nobody knows how many there are and they are lying if they tell you otherwise. For the sake of argument, I have read that the tri-state region of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have at least 6,000 wolves. On the top end I’ve heard 15,000 but I’m going to guess that might be high but then again I don’t live there and spend time in the woods.

If there were 6,000 wolves then math tells us that 1200 – 1800 wolves should be killed each year just to sustain the population at 6,000; and states like Montana, who according to Bob Ream, are aggressively killing more wolves.

But now the question has been brought up that perhaps states offering hunting and trapping seasons, based on the principle of “trophy” and “big game” hunting and trapping, might be causing even more game animals, like elk, moose and deer, to be killed. Is this possible?

It was nearly 4 years ago that I wrote a series, “To Catch a Wolf“. Much of the purpose of that series and other related articles, was to explain how difficult it is to kill a wolf; historically and globally. It’s one of the hardest things to do over a prolonged period of time and that’s why I chuckle at comments like Bob Ream’s when he describes the MFWP actions toward killing wolves as aggressive. There is NOTHING aggressive about trophy hunting wolves.

The process was long and mostly wrought with illegal actions and corruption, but eventually, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming got the infamous and controversial gray wolf removed from protections of the Endangered Species Act and trophy hunting seasons commenced; after all, wasn’t that the target goals of each of the states’ fish and game departments?

And so how’s that “aggressive” hunting and trapping going to reduce wolf populations?

If any of this isn’t complicated and wrought with emotion and irrational thinking enough already, in an email exchange I received today, the idea was presented that hunting a token number of wolves, in other words, managing them as a game species and classified as a trophy animal, might actually be only amounting to breeding a healthier, less stressful wolf that will eat more elk, deer and moose and become an even larger creature than it already is, further capable of killing more and bigger prey.

This idea is based in science, although those who don’t like the science disregard it. The science is the topic of wolf size. Most people are of the thought that a wolf’s size is determined by the species or subspecies the wolf comes from. I’m not going to pretend I have a full grasp of this science but will pass on that the essence of wolf size is determined mostly by food supply.

Consider then this premise to manage wolves as a big game species, which is what is being done in Montana and Idaho. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which includes managing game for surplus harvest, has worked marvelously well over the years, producing in places too many of certain game species. We certainly don’t want that for wolves as the proportion of wolves to prey/game species will soon get all out of whack. Our only hope then, is that the fish and game departments will fail as miserably managing wolves as they have elk, moose and mule/whitetail deer.

There is a reason why honest wildlife managers classify bona fide game animals as such and coyotes (and it should be also wolves) varmints to be shot and killed on site. It’s the only way to keep them at bay. This would be considered an aggressive move toward wolf control. Anything, short of an all out organized program to extirpate the wolf, would work just dandy and would never danger the future existence of this animal.
End

In the years that I have written about wolves, wolf “management” and the political nonsense that goes hand in hand with it, it certainly appears to me that there has become quite an effort among sportsmen to protect THEIR “trophy” wolf hunts. Is that in the best interest of actually regaining a vibrant elk, deer and moose population, that is supposed to be managed for surplus harvest, according to Idaho code?

In its most basic form, at least ask yourself how that “aggressive” trophy wolf hunting is effecting the elk, deer and moose herds? At the same time, what has become and continues to become of those elk tags? There just aren’t enough “trophy” wolf hunters to be effective and supporting the farce perpetuated by Idaho Fish and Game isn’t helping. It’s the same as buying a fifth of gin for a gin-soaked homeless fool.

As was relayed to me today, it seems the, “participants are in a race for the final bull elk or big buck in various units.” That’s the direction it seems we are headed.

Here’s a mini refresher course in promised wolf management. When the Final Environmental Impact Statement was approved, leading to the Final Rule on Wolf Reintroduction, the citizens of the Northern Rocky Mountain Region, where wolves were to be (re)introduced, were promised several things. First, we were promised that wolves would be “recovered,” a viable, self-sustaining population, when 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves existed in three separate wolf management zones for three consecutive years. Those numbers were achieved by 2003. What happened? Nothing but lawsuits and wolves didn’t finally get delisted until 2011 due to legislative action.

All promises made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were based on 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves. They lied!

Second, citizens of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming were promised that wolves would have no measurable impact on wild game herds. The only thing that might possibly be needed was a slight 10% or less reduction in cow elk tags should the occasion arise for the need to boost elk production in exceptional cases.

So, I ask. How many elk tags have been lost since those promises were made? As a matter of fact, all promises made were reneged on. There is no reason to believe or support anything promised us by government. Stop giving government money to run their con game. At this rate game animals will all be gone soon enough and no hunting opportunities will prevail….except possibly trophy wolf tags.

What will it be. As the old saying goes, “Pay me now or pay me later.”

In Colorado, The Call to Control Humans Not Bears

Further proof that Americans are living in a totalitarian socialist state and that animals are more important than people and the lifestyles they choose to live, people cry out for more control over humans so animals can be protected at all costs.

In Colorado, bears are a problem. This year it is being blamed on a shortage of natural food. However, authorities admit there are too many bears…period. If we lived in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, we’d go kill some bears and bring the population back down to manageable levels for public health and safety. But that doesn’t fly with the totalitarians who hate rural America, the heritage that goes with it and the common sense of letting people protect their property and safety. This is insanity in full force.

In Glenwood Springs, Colorado totalitarians are calling for further restrictions on humans. No that’s not a misprint. I said humans. Because there are too many bears, fines should be levied against anyone who allows a bear to come on their property looking for food. If the homeowner isn’t complying with all the ridiculous gestapoesque regulations, they get fined. Humans must seriously alter their lifestyles and pay fines to protect an animal species that authorities say there are too many of them. How does any of this make sense?

Evidently the program that city officials implemented isn’t working out so some are suggesting turning enforcement over to the police department.

Hey, idiots. You have a bear problem. Why don’t you just run the people out of town or force them into intern camps and let the bears have their way? That is your goal isn’t it?

One city council member suggested that what should be done is a repeal of the bear hunting ban. I’m sure that will not go over well because totalitarian idiots love their bears.

And all the while this is going on, in Maine, the Humane Society of the United States is allow to lie through their teeth about what is going on in states like Colorado that banned bear hunting like these fascists want to do in Maine. HSUS goes unchallenged. HSUS has filed a lawsuit in Maine to stop the fish and game department from opposing the referendum, saying it’s unethical. How about a counter lawsuit to stop HSUS from lying repeatedly. Oh, yeah. I forgot. Lying is readily acceptable these days. The end justifies the means.

So long as we continue on down the road of mythology, that we NEED “reasonable” regulations and restrictions, compromising our existence for the sake of animals, there is little hope.

Nothing to see here. Move on. More important things to be seen on your smart phones and eyepads.

GlenwoodSpringCo

Can Black Bears Be Aggressive?

Note* – I was sent an email yesterday from a women who asked me if bears can really be aggressive. It came on the heals of an event in which a bear came out of the woods, running toward two people and making “strange noises.” I took the time to reply and this morning, after thinking about it, I decided it was worth sharing what I wrote.

I think the key words here are CAN THEY BE aggressive? Yes they can under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, for the animal lovers they refuse to accept that premise…I suppose fearing it somehow will jeopardize the existence of bears.

Generally speaking all animals, yes, even your little doggies, have the potential to attack, even if it’s a quick snap. Why? The obvious answer is because they are animals. I see it all the time where people insist on putting their face into the space and face of dogs and cats or any animal for that matter. Perhaps the dumbest thing to do.

Back to bears. Hard to believe there are 30,000 plus bears in Maine because we seldom see them and won’t under ideal circumstances. We all choose to apply human traits to animals, which is nonsense, but sometimes helpful to get people to understand circumstances can change. Just like with humans, when circumstances FORCE you to move outside your comfort zone, you do what you need to do. Animals are no different except they react and don’t reason.

Bears prefer their natural surroundings and that includes natural food. They are opportunistic [hunters] and yes, especially during this time of year, are gorging themselves in preparation for hibernation. If natural food is in short supply, we see more bears and hear of more human/bear conflicts.

Then we need to better understand the REAL behavior of bears not the Romance biologists’ perspective of things. Even this event that you describe, may not have ended in a bad way….or it may have been devastating. Bears, as with other large predators, i.e. coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, etc. go through a progression, actually, before they will attack a human. That is USUALLY. Those bear attacks on hikers etc. do not qualify here as probably the animals felt threatened and reacted.

However, bears and others actually have to learn how to attack a human. They don’t look at you or me and say, hmmm, human = food. They see us as another moving object. They don’t even know if we are good to eat or if they are capable of killing us. So, they take themselves through a process of “testing” to find out what that moving creature (human) will do.

The most obvious “testing” predators do, not just with humans but other prey species, is called “prey testing”. In this regard they do things to see how the prey will react. If a bear approaches a human and the human shoots, yells, throws rocks etc., the bear might get the message this isn’t going to be easy. On the other hand, if the human doesn’t offer any kind of resistance, the bear moves on to the next test to see what you will do.

Perhaps this bear that came running out of the woods was merely testing these humans to see how they would react to a charge. We read about it quite often. That is why we are told not to run when a bear does this. That’s what they want you to do. However, who has the [guts] to stand up to a charging bear? Perhaps this charging bear had already done some testing before this. Predators will quietly and secretly observe potential prey before being bold enough to come out and begin fighting like a man. LOL

Under most conditions bears are harmless. What bothers me is that because of that repeated statement, people refuse to accept any other description of bears. People really need to understand that there is ALWAYS potential danger with any animal – wild or domestic. If we learn about their behaviors and what they mean, we can reduce our risk of what might happen in dealing with that occasional bear encounter or coyote encounter or fox or marten, etc.

People love to focus on the rarity of such events. Rarity involves the perspective of the person making the claim. What is rare? You pick up the newspaper and read about a bear incident. I can almost with certainty guarantee that the articles will state that bear attacks are rare and yet seldom offer any education about them.

So again, I ask. What is rare? Is it rare because you don’t personally know anybody that got attacked by a bear? Is it rare because there are 6 billion people in the world and only 5,000 have been killed by bears? How rare do you think it would be for this family had the bear killed one or both of these people? And does it matter about rarity? Whether it’s rare or not a human might have been killed. Was it preventable? More than likely and part of that prevention is to be able to keep bear hunting going and just as importantly to allow the fish and game people to be able to use tools available to help keep us all safe.

My work takes me all over the world and perhaps contrary to what you are reading in papers in Maine right now, in places were bears aren’t regularly and effectively hunted, bear populations are increasing and so are the numbers of bear/human encounters. Don’t believe those lies.

If Maine passes this referendum and there then becomes so many bears that attacks like what you describe become more common, somebody is going to have to KILL bears to stop them. Why not let people who could use the bear do it?

I have described above that bears, when abundant natural food is available, we seldom see. What happens when Maine’s bear population grows from 30,000 bear to 40,000 and then one year, there is little natural food? 40,000 bears all competing for little food. What do you think will happen?

Thanks for sharing the story. I’m certainly glad nobody was injured. Many stories like this are heard and most end with little or no harm done. It’s the real tragic ones like the Rutgers student in New Jersey that really get you to thinking. Rare or not, it didn’t need to happen.

Experience Vs. Romance Biology

A letter writer from Morristown, New Jersey, has a piece in MyCentralJersey.com in which he reluctantly says that the recent attack by a black bear on a Rutgers University student in a park/preserve, was predictable. He claims he has sent “at least” 12 letters since 2007 warning that this event would occur under present bear policy.

Bob Guinter brings up a few good points. The first is in response to a person from the Sierra Club continuing to claim that black bears are docile, timid and afraid of humans.

…after spending over 10,000 hours in the North woods of Maine at my uncle’s wilderness cabin…, My experience is different. Black bears are unpredictable and they are both scavengers and predators as circumstances allow. Perhaps those who believe they are docile and afraid of people simply choose to ignore behaviors they exhibit commonly in their indigenous environment where they are at the top of the food chain.

The second point is in response to a claim that bears become aggressive, slowly over time, because they learn that humans are a source for food.

During my time of hiking and fishing the East Branch of the Penobscot River, it was a rare event to see another human; sometimes not seeing anyone outside of camp for weeks at a time. Yet bear encounters with them exhibiting aggressive behavior toward humans were common. There, they only seemed afraid of anything in the fall when the hunting-dogs were running.

This is perhaps a very good example of romance biology versus actual experience. In this day and age where real science has been shown the door and replaced with computer models and romantic theories, rooted in nonsensical idealism, what we are seeing here is the fruit of that planting.

The masses of people have been propagandized. Some may think propaganda a harsh term in this instance but when you consider that the definition states that it’s bad information being used to promote a cause or belief, it surely fits nicely. The problem here is that this propagandizing has been taking place at all levels of society for a very long time. The result is too many people have never been taught the real truth. Nobody wants to admit they were lied to and that what they believe is false. It’s like admitting a weakness, like alcoholism or drug addiction.

The real loser in all of this nonsense of “new understandings” is the beneficial-to-all scientific community. A true scientific method involves the advancement of a hypothesis. Real scientists then choose to discover if such a hypothesis holds validity. Changes to the hypothesis begin and over time, what was once a mere theory, begins to have credibility – not the lie we have been fed that “the science is settled.” Such a statement, as has been used with climate change, is completely dishonest and borders on criminal.

Today’s new science, called by some “scientism” creates computer models based on an ideology or political agenda. Money is injected and what once was a tried system of peer review, has become a support system propped up with money and promises to arrive at a desired outcome.

Unfortunately for all of us, we are left having to decide who we should believe. The result being this divide pitting totalitarian-minded people, armed with propaganda, attempting to force the rest of society to follow their ideological beliefs, through such things as voter referendums. How does this at all resemble a credible scientific process?

In the letter written that I’ve linked to above, the writer wants to know how the person with the Sierra Club can state that, “bears are usually docile and are more afraid of people than we are of them.” He asks, “How does he know?” And therein lies the difference between knowledge and understanding, through real experience, and fabricated propaganda being used to promote an agenda.

It’s really not all the far away from the story of the two guys who had hiked back into the wilderness to do some fishing and are being chased out of the woods by an attacking bear. One man says, “I don’t think I can outrun this bear!” The other man replies, “I know I can’t. I just need to outrun you.”

Which man is dealing with truth?

EBranchPenobscot

Liberal, Feel-Good Policies Have Created Poverty in Maine

A letter writer to a Maine newspaper says that the effort to ban bear baiting, trapping and hounding by referendum is a “liberal, feel-good policies have created poverty in this state.” I have to agree.

PovertyMassDestruction

ChurchillSocialism

CampingOutFuture