March 23, 2018

The Wolves Held Back the Deer

A friend and reader sent me some information found in a book called, “The History of the White-Tailed Deer in Maine.” Below are excerpts from that book about the deer herd in the State of Maine from as early as the 1700s. Readers might note a couple of things:

1.) In early settlement times, the deer were found almost exclusively along the coastline for a number of reasons. Twice in this writing it is mentioned that deer migrated inland with the expansion of the human population due, in part, by the reduction of the wolf population by the settlers.

2.) The deer would not and did not migrate inland as, “…the wolf still held back the deer from making important gains in those areas which were beginning to be opened up.”

Odd, isn’t it, that our history books are filled with accounts of how wolves dictated the scarcity of game and yet, today, this fact is denied by every environmentalist and their phoney organizations.






Flying Without Wings – Ski Jumping History of Mount Revelstoke National Park

VIDEO: Historic


Wolves Cannot be a Keystone Predator And Not Have an Effect on Ungulates

wolvestwoI recently received a copy of a brand new article that had been published in Muley Crazy Magazine, that was written by Dr. Charles Kay. The title of the article is, “Keystone Predation and Trophic Cascades.” What a brilliant piece of work, I must say. Most brilliant because not only does Kay simply and effectively explain what a keystone predator is, along with trophic cascade, but points out the overuse, perhaps ignorantly and incorrectly, of the term “keystone predator.”

Kay explains in his article that many talk of how wolves are a keystone predator and have created a trophic cascade (more on this in a moment) wherever they are present. He references Yellowstone National Park as an example.

In explaining to readers what keystone predation and trophic cascade are, he used the example of sea otters, kelp forests and urchins along the northern California coast. There exists kelp forests, where, for one thing, small fish use to nourish themselves and seek a degree of protection from larger fish. Urchins eat kelp and sea otters eat urchins. This condition is explained by Kay as a “trophic pyramid”, with the otter on top and the kelp on the bottom.

Uncontrolled hunting by man killed off most of the otters, causing the urchin population to grow, which in turn destroyed much of the kelp forests and yes the disappearance of a fishery. With the efforts of humans, a few surviving otters were returned to the area and with ample prey, the urchin, the otters soon reestablish. With otters reducing the number of urchins, the kelp forests return and in turn the fishery came back also. Dr. Kay says this, “is what is called a cascading trophic effect, where what happens at one trophic level impacts what takes place at other trophic levels.”

In the case of the sea otter, Kay says that, “a keystone predator is a keystone predator only because predation causes a major reduction in the herbivore population, which then causes a major rebound in the associated plant community.”

So, then, is a wolf a keystone predator? By definition a keystone predator, like the sea otter, reduces its prey to levels that have a significant effect on that ecosystem. In my opinion, wolf advocates and others – Dr. Kay lists them: Media, public, judges – wrongly use the term “keystone” in order to make people believe that because it is KEYstone, the ecosystem could not survive without them. As Kay so aptly points out, the wolf sponsors can’t have it both ways; be a keystone predator and NOT reduce significantly its prey species. Since the beginning of the debate about wolves, prior to introduction, the clap trap was readily repeated that wolves will not have any significant impact on its prey species, i.e. deer, elk, moose. However, we are seeing the results of this “keystone” predator, where in places the wolf has roamed and flourished, prey populations have shrunk out of sight.

For decades, where the environmentalists have gone wrong, is their insistence that man was not factored into the role as a keystone predator. This is where Dr. Kay explains that while the sea otter, wolf, bear, mountain lion, etc. may be keystone predators, they are not necessarily THE keystone predator. That title is rightfully placed on the shoulders of man and has been there since the beginning of man’s existence on the planet.

Dr. Kay’s article goes to great lengths in explaining the history of the role of Native Americans as THE keystone predators. His work in establishing time lines, geographical locations and availability of wild game of Lewis and Clark and other explorers, shows where and in what abundance game animals existed and why. It’s not what our education institutions have taught us.

In one’s dishonest effort to protect any species of keystone predator, they cannot claim it to be a keystone predator, for the sake of placing importance and glorification, while at the same time making bold statements that these “keystone” predators will not have any measurable effect on the prey species and ecosystem. Simply by definition, this is ludicrous. It’s as ludicrous as thinking that man can somehow be removed from the entire equation and then everything will be nirvana.

Dr. Kay explains that in reality, if those humans who want Yellowstone National Park to be brought back to its, “natural condition”, then we, “simply need to add native people.”

Kay ends his article with this statement: “As a rule, carnivores did not kill and eat aboriginal people. Instead, aboriginal people killed and ate carnivores, especially bears, making them the ultimate keystone predator.”


U.S. Army seeks removal of Lee, ‘Stonewall’ Jackson honors

She said one faculty member took down the portraits of Lee and Jackson and put them on the floor as part of the inventory process. That gave rise to rumors that the paintings had been removed.

“This person was struck by the fact we have quite a few Confederate images,” she said, adding that the portraits were rehung on a third-floor hallway. “[Lee] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the battlefield whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived. … This is all part of an informed discussion.”<<<Read More>>>


Black Conservatives Discuss NRA Founded to Protect Slaves

VIDEO: An interesting discussion on the founding of the NRA and the reason for it. Listen carefully to the historic references and then ask yourself if they are true – go find out.


The Pilgrim’s Failed Socialist Experiment

By Dr. Harold Pease

Few realize that New England’s first form of government under the Pilgrims was communalism (socialism) where “each produced according to his ability and each received according to his needs,” more than two centuries before Karl Marx first penned the above script. The result of “share the wealth” then and now was, and always will be, shared poverty. <<<Read More>>>


The First and Only Elk Hunt in New Hampshire

elkqueensFew people even know that once wild elk roamed a small area of southwestern New Hampshire. Even fewer know that for two days in 1941, 293 special elk hunting permits were issued, at $5.00 each and 46 elk were harvested.

Wild elk? Perhaps we have come to use the terms wild and pure a bit freely, dumbing down the definitions in order to better fit a narrative or an agenda. Nevertheless, New Hampshire had elk and the numbers got out of hand.

Austin Corbin, a self-proclaimed wildlife conservationist, bought up large parcels of land in the southwestern corner of the state, fenced it in with 36 miles of fencing and began importing wild and various exotic animals; wild boar, moose, bison, bighorn sheep, elk, Chinese pheasant. It is reported that 60 elk were imported from northern Minnesota and placed on Corbin’s preserve.

Corbin only allowed hunting on his preserve when he felt the need to reduce populations of certain species.

Perhaps some readers may be familiar with Austin Corbin as the person who owned the bison that was used to rebuild bison herds in the West.

It was in 1903 that Austin Corbin III, Corbin’s son, gifted the State of New Hampshire with a dozen elk; 8 cows and 4 bulls. The elk were let free by the Andover Fish and Game Club around Ragged Mountain. The elk flourished until reports of anywhere between 60 and 200 or more elk roamed the area and creating great angst among farmers and other landowners because of crop damages and personal property destruction.

On December 17 and 18, 1941, 293 elk-permitted hunters ambushed the area where the elk where amassed and killed 46 wapiti. It was quite the spectacle and a miracle no humans were injured or killed.

So, what happened to the elk? It seems that even after the hunt, where some believed that the most of the elk had been killed, much because there was no good way of actually knowing how many elk there really were, the elk continued to flourish again causing great property damage.

In the early 1950s, New Hampshire passed a piece of legislation stating, “The director of fish and game is hereby directed to reduce the elk herd in the state to a population that will no longer present a potential threat to agricultural interests. The reduction of this herd shall be started at once and carried to completion without unnecessary delay.”

It was also proposed that the elk be relocated to areas in the northern part of the state where human populations were much smaller than in the south. That never happened.

By the mid-1950s officials estimated that free ranging elk in New Hampshire numbered anywhere between 20 and 30 animals. It is assumed that the remaining elk were poached and/or killed by farmers to protect their property.

Officially, there are no longer any wild elk roaming the New Hampshire countryside, although, as one might expect, claims are made on occasion of spotting an elk in the woods of the Granite State.


Sports Illustrated Vault
Soo Nipi Magazine


Once Upon a Time, Long Before Dunkin’ Donuts

*Editor’s Note* – It sure is a blessing for me to have someone who cares enough about our future that has become my volunteer researcher. He provides me with tons of relevant information that I use in various ways and I sure do appreciate it. The information provided in this article of history was sent to me by my “volunteer researcher.”

A reader on this website this morning left a comment. Part of what the reader said was: “No, there is no proof of that _____, it is an assumption that it worked.

And as usual, trying to find the minority of examples doesn’t change the truth.”(emphasis added)

I got thinking about this, along with some information that I was sent in which I had already formulated some basic structure for an article today, and surmised what the reader might have meant by “minority of examples.” That’s when it came to me that what I intended to compose today about predator attacks and human encounters, particularly black bears, describes to a “T” what “minority of examples” might mean.

To set the stage, let me say that often in reading, researching and writing about wildlife, the outdoors, environment, etc., I find many are guilty of attempting to prove their position or perspective on an issue by invoking an anomaly or simply repeating an unproven hypothesis. A good writer/journalist will work hard to avoid such embarrassing displays of ignorance and laziness and yet, we have to deal with the ignorance and effort of those wishing to bolster their idealism and/or animal worship, in some cases.

In dealing with predators, it becomes a difficult task for a couple of major reasons. Probably the first and foremost is the level of power that exists from abusing the existence of animals for political gain. It makes sense really, once you gain a good sense of the constitutional makeup of people, especially in the United States today. Americans love animals to a fault. I far too often find that their infatuation with animals is perverse and have often written about it. And this leads me to the other major reason it’s hard to deal with issues involving predators; people have at or near cult worship with certain species.

Today’s topic deals with black bears. For a myriad of perverse and ignorant reasons, too many people seem to want to protect large predators. I think that over time, brainwashing fascists have convinced people things about wild animals that aren’t true because of the political power gains. Convinced of these false beliefs, they perpetuate the nonsense, all of which is mostly based on the programmed affinity with animals in our culture.

The “True Believers” (if you haven’t read the book you can get it here.) then become the useful idiots who are extremely easy to convince of anything.

Those who want to end hunting, trapping and fishing, are often times not the same group of “True Believers.” No, “True Believers” become convinced that only evil people hunt, fish and trap and that because of that, wildlife if being destroyed. The anti-human fascists who are looking, for political reasons, to end hunting, fishing and trapping also believe and teach that humans are evil destroyers of Mother Earth and need to be stopped.

In this impious, anti-human attack on sanity, reason and truth, lies are commonplace within a society that has been programmed to believe that the end is justified by any means.

An example of such can be found in debates in Maine or any place where the useful idiots rhythmically chant the mantra of the anti-human fascists. It becomes an all out effort to protect the black bear (or pick your favorite predator).

One aspect of the debate involves the issue of bear behavior when subjected to humans and their surroundings. Common sense, grounded in fact, science and history, says that when large predators, like the black bear, become too numerous, it can cause conflicts with humans. In addition to the number of bears in a state’s population, the issues of natural food availability, health and length of hibernation play a role in how often bears and humans meet up.

In addition, people are warned not to feed bears and education efforts are underway in many states to teach people how to make their homes less attractive to intruding bears.

Aside from the hibernation and availability of natural food, man can control feeding wildlife and populations. Population control has historically, and with amazing success, been accomplished over several decades with regulated human hunting harvest.

Unfortunately, the anti-human fascists want to put a stop to hunting, trapping and fishing, not necessarily to offer any protection to the wildlife but to build on their wanton desire for political power and control over people.

In Maine, the Humane Society of the United States (anti-human fascists) intends a citizens’ initiative to end bear hunting and trapping. Victory in this effort will destroy a nationally recognized black bear management plan and destroy a valuable American heritage, resulting in loss of rights and the ability to express those liberties.

Those fighting against this anti-human move argue, in part, that ending bear hunting will create a seriously increased number of human and bear encounters; a real public safety issue. The anti-humans state that hunting, or actually any form of wildlife management is unnecessary; that Mother Nature can make it all nirvana. This, of course, is not true.

One tool that in Maine has become a necessity to keep the annual harvest rate of black bears high enough to stabilize a rapidly growing population of black bears, is the use of bait to lure a bear into a shooting area for hunters. The geographic make consisting of the mountains and dense forests has forced the fish and game department to come up with these tactics in order to keep bear populations at socially acceptable levels, i.e. to reduce the prospects of a public safety issue.

The anti-humans argue that baiting bears is inhumane and that baiting the bears in areas where the creatures live, is acclimating them to humans and this action will increase human/bear encounters in populated areas. This also is not true. Feeding bears in your back yard is acclimating bears to humans but baiting them deep in the forest does not. Repeating such nonsense is akin to the use of “minority examples” to substantiate a false claim.

Some of the lies are intended to make us believe that any problems people might have with bears is caused by the mere existence of human beings. After all, in their eyes, us humans are evil. Some have gone so far as to state that if it were not for the baiting of bears there would be no human/bear encounters.

Historically, not only can that not be proven, but it can reveal quite the opposite. Bear baiting in Maine was not implemented until recent years, certainly long before 1945.

Sent to me were a couple of pages from a book, “Nine Mile Bridge: Three Years in the Maine Woods”, written by Helen Hamlin, the first edition in 1945. The pages included below for readers to enjoy, account for the many encounters humans were having with black bears in Maine prior to 1945 and long before bear baiting and Dunkin’ Donuts.


copyright2 - Copy.ngm





That Modern, Updated Version of the Second Amendment

I was sent this information via email. It contains information about a study guide for an Advance Placement History Exam in which it appears as though great liberties were taken in the writing and publication of this study guide to alter the text of at least one of the Bill of Rights, i.e The Second Amendment.

I can confirm that this study guide can be purchased on Amazon. I can also confirm that part of what is contained in the email is also found as the write up about the study guide found on Amazon.

This text is designed for a one-semester or one-year United States history course for students preparing to take the AP U.S. History Exam. Teachers can assign the book as the course textbook or as a supplement to a college-level textbook. U.S. History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination presents the history of the United States from pre-Columbian times to the Obama administration. It follows the curriculum put out by the College Board for this course of study.

The quote above is only partial. The remainder can be read by visiting the link provided above.

If you take the time to visit Amazon and scroll down to see how the study guide has been rated and the comments left by consumers, you will discover the guide gets very low ratings and recommendations of NOT to allow students to read this information.

I can also confirm at least some media outlets online are talking about this.

So what’s all the fuss? According to what was provided to me, and a copy of it can be found below, one incident in the study guide provides to students what the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights says. I do not have a copy of this study guide so I’m a bit reluctant to publish this.

But first, for those who don’t know or can’t exactly remember, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But, what appears in the study guide is considerably different.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.

And this follows the curriculum of the College Board?

There once was a time when I would have completely blamed political agendas for this. I’m wondering how much of this is actually due to ignorance and ineptitude?

I’d also be curious as to what other travesties are written into this study guide?

So why is this such a tragedy and rewriting the Bible is not?



Give Up Liberty for a Little Security?

Obama says the Founding Fathers got it all wrong. I guess then the comparative quotes below between Obama and Franklin seem at least 230 years apart.