October 19, 2017

“Keystone Species”: The Nauseating Narrative of Convenience

In a rebuttal to an article written by George Smith, outdoor writer and activist, Karen Coker, head of Wildwatch in Maine wrote: “…aggressive beaver trapping prevents them from fulfilling their unique role as a keystone species.”

Like everything in this post-normal world, where real science has been tossed to the side swapped for Romance Biology and driven by special interest, the use of the term “keystone species” seems to have become one of convenience. In the public relations battle, it has become common place to take up the same strategies as the Vatican in determining that the end always justifies the means. In this case, say anything in order to promote your agenda. The agenda is, therefore, “keystone.”

But don’t be mistaken, this strategy is not relegated to only one political side.

To label any species “keystone” denotes that it is top shelf, that without it, serious consequences may befall an “ecosystem” (whatever that is). If you Google “keystone species” you get this: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.”

When personal and political agendas are at stake, any object can and does become a keystone species of utmost importance. Pick one, pick any. When attempting to approach any discussion or activism driven by agendas and politics, rather than an honest scientific approach (and please, enough of stating that you are the holder of real science already), invoking “keystone” tells a reader that the recipient of such a designation must be extremely important. However, what is always left out is the whole picture. It is always presented, as is written in this rebuttal, only in part. The part to supports the agenda.

The author further writes: “The rich wetlands beavers create support thousands of other wildlife species.” This is true….partly. The “rich” wetlands beavers create also destroys thousands of other wildlife species and that is not being considered. Some beavers are a good thing for our “ecosystems” (whatever those are) and more does not necessarily mean better. In fact, it becomes worse as beavers can be extremely destructive.

In Google’s definition of “keystone species” it says that if the species were removed, “the ecosystem would change drastically.” Some definition. Change, in this context, can fit anyone’s agenda. Political agendas and activist organizations are founded on the driving principle that a pet project is top shelf and will cause “drastic” changes. In one’s desire to protect beavers, or whatever the pet animal of the week is, removal of that species, to any degree, presents “drastic change,” and that change is always of the worse kind…in their minds.

One would like to think that wildlife managers understand the need to limit how many “rich wetlands” the countryside is inundated with. And that they also understand that these “rich wetlands” to some are an oasis and to others, death valley.

So enough of the “keystone” crap! For years I have listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry fall all over themselves, labeling their pet project to promote fundraising as “keystone,” “apex” and vitally essential to the salvation of the ecosystem (whatever that is).

While groups take up this strategy, void of actual and honest scientific processes, they also expose their ignorant hypocrisies and double standards. Case in point: Coker makes sure she gets in her jabs by bringing in names that are sure to rile up the masses on her left – NRA, Sportsman’s Alliance and “other powerful special interest groups.” She laments the idea that Smith and any member of these “powerful special interest groups” might “rally and unite their constituents with the message,” while she is rallying and uniting her “powerful special interest groups” with a “message” against what she claims to be Smith’s.

There’s nothing new here and it is all quite nauseating. Coker repeats, often, that her totalitarian (because it aims to force social change on others) special interest group’s appointment to life is, “giving ethical and ecological considerations a much larger role in wildlife policy and decision-making.” Golly, this sounds almost exactly like the Environmentalist-Leftist-Totalitarian purpose “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

Several years ago Environmentalism vowed that it would change the way we discuss and handle wildlife management. What they refused to tell the public that this change was void of the real scientific process. It is now all about social tolerances and the forcing of one group of totalitarian’s ideology onto others who have no interest in it.

Wildwatch Maine wants to place animals on a plane with people, giving them ethical and ecological considerations in order to be more humanlike. They want to control wildlife policy and decision-making void of science and driven by Romance Biology and ideology.

 

Share

Absolute Best View From Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

Katahdin Woods and Waters….Katahdin Woods and Waters….Katahdin Woods and Waters….

DON’T MISS IT!

Share

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Forms New Legislative Action Group

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) recently announced that it is forming the Institute for Legislative Action. This is not a new concept as many organizations have done this. However, it should help SAM when it comes to legislative work that needs to be done. Time will tell.

In the meantime, I would like to offer SAM some advice. Sometimes SAM becomes a bit provincial, catering to members only. An example of this is in my request for email notifications from SAM but can’t get them unless I am a member. This makes no sense at all.

To be forthcoming, I am not a member of SAM and have no intention to become a member of SAM, mostly because I am not a member of anything and am not beholding to anything or anyone except myself. I do, however, have interest in what SAM is doing and often write about it.

Which leads me to the other issue. I understand SAM having a Facebook presence. Yet, the entire world does not revolve around Facebook, although many in the world seem to think so. I do not “do” Facebook, nor do I ever intend to go back there. Facebook has it’s good points, although I am at a loss to think of any. I am not alone in this denial and refusal to be a part of another fascist, dictatorial entity controlling and spying on everything I do.

When SAM makes announcements and releases letters, news, etc., and posts it on Facebook, non members of Facebook are prohibited from viewing it. In the past, I have published some information I get from SAM members who forward the information.

As an outdoor writer, I cannot visit SAM’s Facebook page to glean for news and events. I am relegated to their website page, which brings me to another issue. SAM’s website has relevant and good information on it but is lacking in the same bits of activity and announcements that can be found on Facebook.

Having once been a part of Facebook and having a website of my own, it’s a simple task to set up your website to do all the things you want to appear on Facebook. This requires establishing an area on the website (a simple blog page would work) where all of this information is entered. Settings in Facebook allow a member to automatically publish whatever appears on this website page, on the organization’s Facebook page.

This way, I and thousands more of us that choose not to be a part of Facebook or members of SAM, can visit the website and read information SAM has made available only on Facebook. This is a big win for everybody and should be done immediately. SAM should understand that by not excluding non members from obtaining relevant and live information can only lead to more membership and better public relations.

Share

Maine IFW’s “New Communication” Void of All Things, Hunting, Fishing and Trapping

The other day I was highly critical of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) new approach to “getting their message out” by hiring a professional actor to make “funny videos” to “educate” people about “hiking preparedness, birding and invasive species.

It appears more and more likely that my critique of what appears to be an outward (as opposed to covert) new direction for MDIFW is accurate. In my article I wrote: “It appears to me that the message MDIFW wants to get out is void of deer and moose studies, or anything to do with hunting, trapping or fishing…”

If you haven’t been to MDIFW’s new website, maybe you are unaware that the site is, for all intent and purposes, void of anything to do with hunting, trapping and fishing, other than some generic species information – and, of course, where you can buy a license.

I understand a little bit about websites and website development as I’ve done some of that over the years. Perhaps MDIFW has released their new website a bit prematurely in hopes of tying in all their previous pages of information in time. Or then again, maybe not.

I did my share of bitching and complaining to MDIFW because it took nearly a year for them to get some of their game harvest data reports published Online. It appears that the “new direction” and in MDIFW’s effort to better communicate with the public, they have solved the relentless problem of publishing harvest data for deer, moose, bear, and turkeys. To solve that problem, they’ve simply scrubbed all those pages from the website.

So, if you are interested to get some information about harvest data, like comparing one year to the next, etc. you’ll have to rely on making a phone call and or trying your luck at sending an email. Just for your information, emails will often never get answered….depending, of course, on who you are and what history you might have, good or bad, with the department.

Phone calls might give you some answers but should someone, like me, decide to quote something said in a conversation, it only becomes a matter of “he-said, she-said.” There is no paper trail. I like paper trails. It creates honesty.

In the past 15 years or so, I have amassed quite a collection of web page links to data and information from the MDIFW, that I use in my research, studies and writings. In going down the list this morning, it appears none of the links are any longer operable. And this presents another entire set of difficulties for my readers and I’m sure other media outlets, who, over the years, have published countless articles with links to MDIFW website information. I know I have done that for years. It’s the only way to provide interested readers with credible information. This kind of education is critical to the future of hunting, trapping and fishing. With this information now, effectively censored, MDIFW can go about their business better hidden behind a shield that prevents openness and accountability. Fascism always leads to communism.

It appears that now, unless I see changes forthcoming from MDIFW and their “environmentalist-friendly” website about, “hiking preparedness, birding and invasive species,” and let’s not forget “funny” videos (I want to be a rock star), I will seriously consider if I want to continue buying a license in Maine for hunting and fishing, or any other expenditures that prop up environmentalism and animal rights. If my license fees are going to support this obvious communistic, totalitarian regime of environmentalism, I’m sure I do not want to be a part of that. There are many other places to hunt and fish….well, at least until they all have gone the way of animal rights and environmental perverted ways.

I have asked the question before – Does MDIFW have plans on how they intend to fund their fascist department after they have driven all the hunters, trappers and fishermen from the state? And let’s not forget the snowmobile riders and ATV riders. So long as Maine wants to promote national monuments and all other ways to shut down access to land, funding for MDIFW and the Maine Warden Service will dry up. Then what?

Having said all this, I will keep watch. Either MDIFW has hired a terrible web designer and all those pages of information, now missing, will slowly begin to reappear, or the intention is, in fact, to become like all the rest, catering to the perverted environmentalists. Soon MDIFW will be changing it’s name, once again, to Maine Department of Natural Resources (and piping plovers).

I’m tired and fed up listening to other “sportsmen” exclaim the tremendous work of MDIFW, when the result of that work is being revealed on a daily basis. Is this really what you want MDIFW to be? I hope not.

Added note: If you visit the MDIFW website, click on “Site Map” in the upper right hand corner. This can give you an overview of all pages available to readers. It becomes quite clear what the message is intended to be.

Share

Buzzing Baby Bumble Bee Tosses Stinger Into Congressional Race For Maine 2nd District

“You can be anything you want to be,” said momma Bumble Bee. And so, baby Bumble Bee has decided to become a politician. Lucas St. Claire, the son of Burt’s Bees founder, Roxanne Quimby, after buzzing around for a few years to burden Maine with a senseless national monument of land donated by his mother, is taking the advice handed down from generation to generation – “you can be anything you want” – and has decided he wants to be a politician.

Some might say he isn’t qualified, but then in an honest assessment one would have to ask just what it takes to be a politician. Many have come before him and many will follow. Certainly the first and foremost qualifications would have to be an egoist/narcissist, a liar, a crook, a thief, a pervert, a child molester, a sex addict, a hypocrite, etc. etc. And those are the best qualities. It will be up to the voters to decide if St. Claire has any of those necessary qualities to become a lifetime politician, sucking off the teet of the hardworking, taxpaying voter.

St. Claire, one of a turnip truck load of slime seeking to bilk the taxpayer, as all politicians do, wants to become the democratic challenger to incumbent republican slime ball politician, Bruce Poliquin. The Poliquin camp, acknowledging St. Claire’s announcement of intent to run, made the following statement:

“From being an attempted gourmet chef through his college training in London, to a wine expert in Seattle, to spending his family’s money ignoring the will of local voters, he has moved on to thinking he should be a politician.”

Perhaps it was St. Claire’s mother’s deal she struck with Barack Obama, that if she gave land for a national monument, a move that would piss off the majority of Maine residents (divide and conquer), he would, as he is still very active at being a crook after his job as puppet-in-chief, see to it that her son got a free ride into Washington, where all the sick-ass perverted, cohorts hang out.

Share

So, Just What Exactly is Maine IFW Trying to Communicate?

First thing this morning I opened a link to a news story about how a major land owner in Maine, J.D. Irving, has been awarded a conservation award from Sustainable Forest Initiative. In gleaning the report, I read this: “JDI is supporting a large study of white-tailed deer through collaboration with six scientists as well as partners in government across New Brunswick and Maine. The deer research is using GPS tracking and extremely accurate forest inventory mapping to look at how deer are using different forest types during summer and winter months. This long-term study will monitor 140 deer and the habitats they choose over the next four years.”

Did I know this? Did you know this? Without knowing what exactly “supporting a large study” means, one might think that activity deserving of recognition might be worthy information to openly and eagerly share with the Maine people. Evidently it’s not.

In my work with this website, part of that includes a pretty close monitoring of the things that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) does….or doesn’t do. I am signed up to receive press notices, email notifications and Twitter Updates, although I suspect strongly that I don’t receive all that go out…for whatever the reasons.

It wasn’t until long after MDIFW had begun their deer study, that I and the rest of the public learned of it. It wasn’t until today, that I learned that J.D. Irving was “supporting a large study” with Maine and New Brunswick. If I, as someone who spends probably more time and effort than the majority of Maine residents keeping track of such things, don’t know these things, one has to suspect the general population isn’t either.

To date, MDIFW has been very stingy with any information about the study. Other than an occasional “release” to a “safe zone” propaganda outlet, the public would know nothing about the study or that it even existed.

However, this really doesn’t come as a surprise to me, as MDIFW does a very poor job of “communicating” with the public and and even worse job “communicating” with the license-buying sportsmen who pay their salaries. One example of terrible communicating is the department’s relentless tardiness in making available deer, bear, moose and turkey harvest reports and data. Seriously, I wonder why that is?

I also wonder why it is that a better effort can’t be made to share information about the ongoing studies of deer and moose in the state? Is it that the department really hasn’t the time or the money?

Following the revelation that J.D. Irving was awarded for “supporting a large study” of deer, I found out that the MDIFW has decided that the T.V. show, North Woods Law wasn’t embarrassing enough for them and the Governor’s office, so as part of what is being expressed as a campaign to “better communicate their mission with the general public,” they have teamed up with a professional actor to make “funny” videos.

The article I just finished reading says these videos are to share with the public and to “get our message out.” It appears to me that the message MDIFW wants to get out is void of deer and moose studies, or anything to do with hunting, trapping or fishing, even though, as I have repeatedly stated, it is these sportsmen who fund a great part of MDIFW’s budget…a budget that evidently allows them to hire a professional actor and spend their time recording “funny” videos for the “new” website and to publish on YouTube.

I also learned that: “The videos, produced by a professional ad agency [how much did this cost license holders?], are quick hits on three outdoorsy topics: hiking preparedness, birding and invasive species. (emboldening added)

If J.D. Irving’s “supporting a large study” is great enough that it actually made the study possible (and I don’t know what “supporting” means – maybe MDIFW should tell us?) maybe it would make a whole lot of sense to get J.D. Irving into one of those videos, if they are all that important to “getting the message out.” But maybe this is more telling than we realize. Perhaps the “message” is more about hiking, birding and invasive species, than deer, moose, trout or roughed grouse because the department has changed their focus to side dishes while disregarding the meat and potatoes.

But here I am again saying, this shouldn’t come as any surprise. Maine’s fish and game department – even fisheries and wildlife is an inaccurate title for the message it appears they want to send – is no different than all the rest of this country’s environmentalism-driven departments based on Scientism and the relationships of people and animals, far exceeding the relationships between person and person, as is obvious in our violent, angry and hate-filled society.

What I want to know is what plans the State of Maine, and the MDIFW, have in place to fund the future department of natural resources, animal rights and protectionism, when hunting, trapping, and fishing, along with the closing down of access to forests, effectively stopping ATV riding and snowmobiling, are eliminated in about 10 years?

The MDIFW evidently doesn’t have the time or resources to get game harvests reported online until the start of the following hunting seasons, or later, but they have time to make “funny” videos and resources to hire an ad agency, with a professional actor, to send out the message that hiking, birding, and invasive species are far more important than hunting, fishing and trapping.

I think the message is very clear and that MDIFW has been advertising that message loud and clear for several years now. MDIFW is NOT about getting the message out that hunting, trapping and fishing are the very backbone of this entire industry that has brought Maine and the rest of this nation to a point were responsible wildlife management has become the norm. Because we live in a post-normal age, all that has proven to work and has been successful and effective, must be destroyed and replaced with Romance Biology and VooDoo Scientism.

Maine, and the rest of the nation should say goodbye to our traditions of hunting, fishing and trapping and prepare for the “message” MDIFW and others are trying to get out.

From my perspective, it’s a real shame. I also feel bad for J.D. Irving that MDIFW cannot even take the time to acknowledge their support for their ongoing deer study. It is terrible public relations like this that next time MDIFW wants to have a study, they will be left on their own to figure it out.

Good work people!

As I see it, the choice now becomes mine. I can either hope that hunting and fishing are around until I drop dead, or I can become part of the “New Science” Scientism that is driving it all. Answer? I will NOT be signing up for “Keeper of the Maine Outdoors.”

Share

Buying Into Deer Management by Political Influence

Recently a Maine outdoor writer expressed his newly found knowledge he had acquired from reading a 10-year-old study about how deer can destroy a forest. What is most unfortunate for readers is that lacking in this report was the actual history of what took place during that time that prompted this politically biased report, placing pressure on the Pennsylvania Game Commission, forest management companies and private land owners to side with the Game Commission in carrying out their newly crafted deer management plan to radically butcher the existing deer herds throughout the state by up to 70%.

If for no other reason, one has to look at the very top of the study to see that the study was composed by, essentially, the forest industry. With knowledge and understanding, which so few people have these days, of the realities of “studies,” founded in Scientism and outcome-based, agenda-driven, “science,” one can easily discern that this study is the work of scientists, paid by the forest industry, to show a need to protect the forest, even at the expense of a deer herd.

There is, of course, more than one side to any story. The Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission to try to get them to stop the destruction of the deer herd. However, many believed the number of deer in Pennsylvania to be much too large, in some places sporting numbers in excess of 60-70 deer per square mile. Growing up and hunting in Maine, where at times to find 1 deer in 60-70 square miles was a feat, it’s difficult to muster up support for those complaining that reducing deer populations to 15-20 deer per square mile would be a total destruction of the deer herd. There is a balance in there somewhere and it’s not based strictly on numbers but on a wide variety of items, often mostly driven by habitat and available feed on a continuous level.

The study in question is more of a political influence prompted by a very nasty set of events set in the mid-2000s. No study should be blindly accepted as the gospel without a deep forensic research into the background of the study and the whos and whys it is being done. Few would argue that too many of any animal within a defined area of the landscape can be destructive, in more ways than simply eating too much vegetation. But at the same time, a biased study, bought and paid for by the forest industry, has to be taken with a grain of salt and definitely within the context of the events at that moment in time. That is why the author should have spent a little more time in conducting his own research about the politics behind this study before extolling its “scientific” virtues as high value.

At the time this study was being compiled, those of us who followed the event, saw typical political nonsense loaded with contradictions. As an example, the forest industry, seemingly having convinced the Game Commission, that the only way the forest industry could survive was to have the deer densities slashed to around 15 deer per square mile. The same forest industry and Game Commission said that their new deer management plan would manage and maintain populations at that level, and yet in May of 2008, we read in the news that a member of the Pennsylvania Game Commission said that in one region, where deer densities had been reduced to 15-20 per square mile, the deer where healthy, the forest had “regenerated,” and that now the deer herd could be rebuilt. Rebuilt? Huh?

The author’s piece also revealed, what he called, “troubling,” a statement made by an author of the study in question. “It doesn’t matter what forest values you want to preserve or enhance – whether deer hunting, animal rights, timber, recreation, or ecological integrity – deer are having dramatic, negative effects on all the values that everyone holds dear.”

This is, of course, the root of all things bad when it comes to wildlife and game management. The real scientific method has gone absent. The study in question is a work of Scientism, in which those with authority present their opinions and perspectives as scientific evidence, understanding full well the power derived by such a position. When scientific decisions are disregarded and replaced with caving in to social and socio-political groups because deer, or any other animal, is having “dramatic, negative effects on all the values” that these, sometimes perverse groups “holds dear,” what hope is there for responsible game management? We can always expect to read more fake “studies” bought and paid for by political groups for political purposes.

Interesting that the reality is that none of these social groups would be in any position to be seeking the preservation of their perceived values as they might pertain to wildlife, if, over the past century, the hunters, trappers and fishermen had not been the financiers and willing participants in the execution of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. And yet, these social and political groups, who are now dominating the fish and wildlife agencies across the country, have never paid a lick of money or given any time toward real conservation of wildlife, are looking to destroy the one proven existence that has brought us to this point. Go figure.

Share

Not Knowing What’s Science and What’s Scientism

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine has placed a link to what they call “science” to prove – “this is the science proving” – that baiting bears changes the dynamics of the animals and the surrounding forests, where bears “could” cause damage to plants.

First off, the fake “study” is not science. It is the result of Scientism and a couple of students who set out to discredit in any way they could, hunting and in particular hunting bear using bait as one of the tools to accomplish the task. In other words, this is very typical of outcome based “scientific research.”

Scientism is nothing more than what some of us have come to recognize as “what scientists say and do.” It is also a dangerous and unrestrained credence of the power and authority realized from the manipulated field of science. This study is a fine example of how the scientific process is foregone and replaced with someone’s belief system because there is power in the publication of “studies.”

The scientific process is almost never followed anymore, due to a myriad of reasons, money being one of them along with political idealism and personal agendas.

Secondly, this “study” takes place within a national park in Canada, where black bears are protected. Without having data at my disposal, an intelligent supposition would be that in a park where black bears are protected, depending upon the cycle the bears were going through during the study period, there are probably too many bears in the park. Those dynamics differ greatly from areas where bears a responsibly managed and kept in check to meet management goals and social tolerances.

The study references bear baiting stations adjacent to the park placed there by hunters. Not all hunters are stupid and thus they realize that with too many bears in the park, perhaps a good place to set up a bait station and a tree stand would be adjacent to the park. Does this tactic actually result in increasing the odds of bagging a bear? I dunno. Neither do the researchers.

The short of all this is that the “scientists” chose a location for their study that is far from being typical of the vast forests that make up Canada and parts of the U.S. So, the dynamics of bears and their habitat is not what one might expect to find in the majority of the rest of the world. Observations might prove interesting but for what purpose other than political?

So, what good then is the study? I alluded to that above. And when the study was all said and done, the authors state that with hunters having baiting stations adjacent to the park, bears “could” cause some damage to the trees and vegetation. I wonder if this “could” happen even if the bait stations weren’t there. Did the “scientists” set up a comparative study area outside of the park, in a location more typical of the forests?

The purpose of the study, more than likely, has been exemplified as we see an animal rights, environmental group emotionally grasping at anything, even when it doesn’t even closely resemble the scientific process, to promote their totalitarian agendas aimed at ending a lifestyle they don’t agree with.

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine, in their posting (on Facebook?) states that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t consider this dynamic change possible. Actually, I’ve never heard or read anywhere that MDIFW doesn’t believe that baiting bear changes the dynamics of the forest in places where bear are being baited. It doesn’t take a science degree to understand that any and all “changes” within a forest ecosystem can and will have an effect on the dynamics between animal and ecosystem. It then is left to a person’s, or a group of person’s, perspective on what they want to see or have before them.

I think that it is wrong to make a statement about MDIFW of this kind. MDIFW has made it perfectly clear from the beginning that they would like to continue with baiting bear as a tool to help keep the growth of black bears in check in order to assume responsible management of a healthy bear population. Should numbers of bears drop to management’s desired levels, I’m quite certain that MDIFW would cease bear baiting.

But, within this entire debate, both sides cherry-picking convenient products of Scientism to bolster their arguments, in the grand scheme of things, there is so little baiting going on anywhere that it is akin to somebody dumping a cup of coffee into Sebago Lake (47.68 sq. miles) and declaring that the lake dynamics have changed and thus the lake has gone to hell.

Share

The Left, The Right, Reality and Zinke’s Proposed Forest Management Practices

From the Left all we ever hear is “We’re all gonna die!” From the Right all we ever hear is “It’s about time we’re gonna get it right!” The reality is nothing ever changes. But, don’t go look. The Left/Right paradigm is fake but exists only in echoed rhetoric and that is exactly what we are seeing when Trump’s new Secretary of the Interior announced changes in forest management practices.

The West is burning up, as one report this morning stated. Forest fires are popping up everywhere and as is usually the case, the Left blames is on Global Warming, and the Right blames it on poor forest management practices that result in the creation of tinder boxes.

Another example of the emotional reactions of brainwashed and blinded people is that immediately fear mongering began about the possibility that a tree might now be cut on Maine’s new and mostly unwanted national monument, Katahdin Woods and Waters.

The Right claims that their intent is “a healthy forest through active timber management,” with never a definition of the intent – and that is for a reason. The Left threatens a lawsuit if Zinke tries to cut down one tree in Katahdin Woods and Waters.

St. Clair, the original owner’s son, who is now the front man, without having a clue what Zinke meant by changing forest management practices, said, “We didn’t donate this land to be used as a commercial timbering operation.”

And this is business as usual here in the U.S. of A. While nothing changes in the Federal Government, except that which the ruling establishment wants to change and Congress just does as they are told, a part of what never changes, which is the reason the Federal Government gets away with what they do, is that the Left and Right continue their reactions and responses in the usual manner. In this case, the Left says we’re all gonna die and the Right says it’s about time to get it right. And then it’s on to the next round of fake announcements and none of these mouthy people ever go back to examine exactly what took place.

I think James Beers, former member of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says it quite well as to why nothing will change – except the emotional rhetoric that always accompanies false political announcement. The Left controls every aspect of government, as well as every non-governmental agency. Because of the infiltration and successful years of brainwashing and mind control throughout our indoctrination factories, even those, like Sec. Zinke, who, to the Left, appears to be a Rightist intent on destroying the forests, cannot help but do anything except what the Left desires – protect the forests and create the tinder boxes. Only politics calls for the political rhetoric to satisfy the voters of each perspective party.

Beers points out much the same when he says that the only way anything could change is through serious changes and/or repeals of certain draconian federal laws that prohibit change of any kind. And we know that will NEVER happen because it is not intended to happen. And so we keep on keeping on.

Beers writes in a recent email:

All of these above mentioned reasons for fuel accumulation and many, many other dwindling public land benefits that are slated for elimination by fiats, regulations and unjust law authorities granted federal bureaucrats in the past 40 to 50 years have a common taproot..  Past Administrations, their appointees and the bureaucrat “scientists” they have hired, all have this land closure and sustainable natural resource management elimination  as their ultimate goal.  Unless and until that “legal” (?) authorization for federal bureaucrats in federal laws like the ESA and Wilderness Act is either repealed or severely and specifically controlled in the specific federal laws authorizing such tyranny I don’t believe these somewhat generic and feel-good directives amount to anything.  The next Administration (look to all the Obama directives and letters, etc. on a wide variety of subjects) will simply issue their own directives (and probably in less than 9 months) and just drop the government truck into high gear and truck on down the road from where they left off on 19 January, 2017.

Because we cannot see, with each announced or “leaked” (that’s funny) change to anything, we will always keep hearing, we’re all gonna die, and it’s about time to get it right, but the truth is nothing ever changes, because “We the People” call all the shots and “we the people” have nothing to say about it – but we are trained to think we do.

Yep, somethings never change. Just more talk.

Share

Venison 101

Share