September 22, 2018

Bursting the Bubble of “Normal” Bear Behavior

If anyone might be interested to return to my seemingly endless commentary on bear behavior and bear attacks, they would discover that I’m a broken record when it comes to the sickening echo chamber of “bears don’t ‘normally’ act that way” and “bears don’t ‘normally’ attack people for no reason.” etc. And of course the most childish of all lame comments, “Bears are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

It never ends. When children don’t act the way we WANT them to, or what the indoctrination institutions and doctors consider “normal” behavior, we feed them chemicals to alter that behavior to make them “normal.”

“Normal” is a subjective issue that we have willingly given over to centralized authority and as such are slaves to their perspective of normal. Whatever doesn’t fit the “normal” mold is left either unexplained or simply passed off as an anomaly regardless of the frequency of not normal (by chosen perspective) behavior.

We can’t harness and drug bears. Instead, we insist on sticking to human-projected behavior patterns, framed around the bio-perverse obsession with protecting wild animals (large predators like bears) even at the expense of human life. In short, we want animals to be human-like and therefore project human characteristics onto animals.

A recent attack by two bears in Wyoming on a guide and his client has created a bit of a stir. The Media including Social Media and Internet websites have, once again, revealed to us the very reason we should NEVER believe ANYTHING we read on their platforms. Written accounts of the event have proven over and over to be inaccurate and yet the bad information gets embellished and passed along – and worst believed.

The brain trust – those who know more about everything than anyone else and has an “expert” opinion – have provided all the answers to any question asked and even those that haven’t.

In all of this, once again we are subjected to the vomit of the Media as they try to choke back their regurgitated nonsensical misinformation about bear behavior – and refuse to change.

I read this evening in the Newscentermaine.com website how we will probably never know why these two bears attacked two men attempting to retrieve a dead elk. The entire article is rife with terrible information that is formulated in the manner in which I described at the beginning of this piece.

Based mostly on the perverse need, having been indoctrinated into the minds of most American’s these days, to paint a completely positive aura about bears and other large predators, officials, brainwashed in their strong delusion that “bears don’t normally act this way,” now want to tell us we’ll never know why these bears attacked. Could it be that they attacked because they are BEARS??? Geez!

Here is a laundry list of nonsense repeated in this Online Media article:

“Wyoming wildlife officials say we may never know why a grizzly bear and her cub killed a hunting guide in an unusual and unprovoked attack.”

We are to believe that this attack was “unusual” because it doesn’t nicely and conveniently fit the narrative used to protect large predators. We are also to believe the attack was “unprovoked.” Try to understand how stupid that statement is. Because we refuse to understand that all animal behavior is unpredictable, this attack is called “unprovoked.” Obviously, something provoked the bears to attack, even if they were provoked by the simple fact that they are wild, unpredictable, large animals. Geez!

“We’re very fortunate that bears usually behave like bears should… But there are occasions where bears don’t behave like other bears.”

Once again, we are supposed to believe their inconsistent mantra that bears’ behavior is “normal” and predictable.

“Grizzlies don’t typically attack humans like that…”

Says who? Well, the authorities, that’s who. They don’t want anyone to have any ill feelings toward grizzly bears so they repeatedly tell us bears are afraid of us and are harmless except if you “surprise” them or meddle with cubs. B.S.!!! They even tell us bears are so harmless we can effectively protect ourselves by arming ourselves with bear spray – the same bear spray the guide used and died anyway. And note these same authorities who want you to carry bear spray so you won’t harm bears had to kill the same bear that attacked the guide and hunter with a rifle. Hmmm.

“Attacks are more commonly associated with either a surprise encounter… or if the bears were defending their food.”

None of my comments are intended to tell people this information about bear behavior isn’t true – it is just incomplete and saturated with the human condition foisted onto an animal. Each and every time authorities go out of their way, and the press becomes their echo chamber, to tell us how RARE it is that a bear, a wolf, a fox, a mountain lion, a bobcat – you name the animal – attacks someone, it’s unusual and not “normal” behavior. The truth is they don’t know what’s normal or abnormal behavior. If it fits their determined narrative, then it must be “normal.” Anything outside of that convenient narrative is just “unexplained,” as though it never happens but once in a million years. And yet we are always reading about those “unusual” and not “normal” attacks on people while refusing to change our understanding of wild animal behavior and do and say responsible things like, “______ attacks are considered to be not man-created normal behavior. All animals, wild and domestic can be and are unpredictable. You should always approach every animal in every situation as though just about anything will happen…including one of those ‘unprovoked’ attacks.”

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to change what they say.

Share

Highly Accurate And Relevant

https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/a-global-public-authority/

TOWARDS REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20111024_nota_en.html

The Church says nothing to expose the real deceit of banking. It’s also amazing to see The Church extolling the virtues of ‘centralisation’ in, of course, the context of a beneficial almost philanthropic global public authority, which ‘centralisation’ used to be plainly called and known for what it was, ‘communism’. Since the days when school boys were told how to recognise communism, by using their eyes and common sense where they saw clear evidence demonstrating greater centralisation of power to so-called public authority in whatever guise (more for themselves in telling you what to do and less for us in deciding for ourselves what we care to do), we certainly have indeed fallen a long way in our general standards of education. The quick, simple and easy definition of communism or any other -ism with tyrannical ambitions will always be, ‘more excuses to centralise the power and authority of individual free-willed people into the hands of a few – to tell the people what they can and cannot do and whose life is of value’; welcome to the ‘common good’, welcome to slavery. Communism, a tool of the private international banking elite, as is known, has as well high ideals towards the ‘common good’ in the context of a central or global authority which funnily enough is not too dissimilar to this grand scheme ‘towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority’ that we see the church extolling. Coincidences abound, how fascinating. Oh well, nothing to see here and certainly there’s no cause for concern. Others ought to be trusted in ensuring your future, simply because they tell us we can trust them and say the ‘most’ clever things. So, it’s a good thing that we each consent to give them our power of authority as individual free-willed people because they are sure to do a better job of looking after our individual interests. Far better than we could do in ‘taking responsibility’ for looking after our own interests. Don’t you think? Besides, they have God on their side.

UNITED STATES BISHOPS: THAT’S WHY WE CARE ABOUT INTERNATIONAL DEBT

http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-63_en.html

How irrelevant: A call for debt-relief and a ‘jubilee’ on debt is just skirting the issue – There simply is no debt that is owed to the banks; whether individual debt or, ‘so-called’ national or sovereign debt that you have to pay as taxes. So long as you and your actions through your ‘correct title’ (LIVE birth certificate name) remain outside of the ‘jurisdiction of the fictional-country’ where those debts and numerous other liabilities operate, you cannot be subject to them. It remains for ‘you’ to understand that contracting to and remaining within the ‘jurisdiction of a fictional-country’ using an incorrect title (A GOVERNMENT OR STATE SIGNED birth certificate), a title owned by and in the jurisdiction of the fictional-government or the fictional-state, means that you will be subject to that governments or states ‘fictional-countries’ jurisdiction and those who oversee that jurisdiction. You will then become liable for ALL the rules that apply to the ‘incorrect title name’ you are contracting through within the fictional-countries jurisdiction and where all these other entities also operate, for example, government, judiciary, banks, etc. Of course, all of this is nonsense, nevertheless, that’s the position as it is found today and as it has been for eons. When you don’t pay attention to what nature or nature’s God has provided for you in ‘freewill’, then there will be those who will have you contract your very soul away. The ‘freewill’ that is of our nature and is ‘true law’, means that a ‘pretended authority’ cannot have you do something without your consent, otherwise it would be clearly slavery. So, you need to be blinded into thinking that ‘democracy’ in their fictional-world has somehow a greater standing than ‘freewill’. This is in order to enslave, by weight of numbers, the individual not ‘contracted’ to this fiction for, of course, the common good. A most ingenious and subtle system of tyranny that at once has the great mass of people contract their ‘freewill’ away to a make believe fictional-state whose advocates will promise you the world. But, more than that. The people actually believe and think that it is the score-card of this tyranny, as a ‘majority’ government, that makes-up ‘their law’ and not the individuals ‘freewill to decide to consent or not’ that actually IS – the law . By this means, they enslave themselves all at once to their ‘state’, and force those that say otherwise to submit to the puppet masters urgings. Now, one can understand why the true definition of politics has been said to be the ‘art of deceit’.

2020: Our Common Destiny

http://nord.twu.net/acl/2020.html

Share

Sometimes Psychopaths Tell The Truth

Thinking back..

Share

My Wolfed Down And Burned Down Wilderness Experience

I noticed something yesterday as I did a 14 mile hike on single track, off trail, then back to single track in the Frank Church Wilderness.. I’ve wandered around in this particular spot since the 1970s.. This section is along elk creek going towards Porter creek and beyond to Sulpher creek.. The place has mile wide and miles long seemingly endless meadows surrounded by once pristine lush forests and under story now all burned to the ground and is a maze of dead fall.. The single track paths are clogged shut for miles now..

The place used to be an incredibly amazing wildlife observation hike and even a early fall excellent hunting experience.. Along with incredible fishing in lakes and streams.. I was attempting a 16 mile in and out into one of those lakes and within about a mile I decided to give up on the lake.. I was tired of the down timber maze after fighting four miles of that maze of waist and chest high obstructions.. I knew I needed to turn back.. I made a loop out of the hike..

I noticed not one single bear scat, wolf scat, Wolverines were not in there usual hang outs making tracks and scat either, No elk scat, with two coyote scats and one deer scat on this walk.. A place where it was normal to see herds of elk, various deer sightings, bears, fish in the streams.. Even the bird and squirrel life in there was boring.. I did see a dead bull elk.. While bushwhacking four miles I nearly tripped over a bloated, by my estimation dead for 24-36 hours bull elk.. Nothing had fed on it, I could not determine a cause.. I suspect arrow though and to far back from the lungs and heart into the liver area..I did not have time to put a knife to work to validate my suspicion..

Kinda strange I thought, after reading about the grizzly man fight over a dead elk in Wyoming upon first stumbling onto this prize dead elk in this ruined dead place in these deep dead sterile woods.. I immediately started looking for a charging black bear.. What are the odds of in all of that devastated by wolves and fires area do I stumble over this dead bull.. As i walked around in this once paradise I thought of Val Geist’s predictions of the aftermath of over populated wolves.. I thought to my self, the damned wolves came in here and eventually delisted themselves..

They had to leave here or die, and they did.. They cleaned the place out.. In 2006 through 2009 on various excursions into this area I observed them doing exactly that.. Running the trails like police dogs, inspecting every camp, devouring everything not fast enough to out run them.. I did bump into a pair of wildlife photographer about a mile in from the trailhead.. Out of Oregon.. He asked me what happened to this place.. I say’s to him, wolves and fires, and fires and wolves.. So I noticed something yesterday, wolves eventually delist themselves.. The place was sterile, wolfed down and burned down… I’m going back in there to salvage the horns and ivories in late spring..

And to cut the trail open for my horses so I can once again fish the best fishing hole I’ve ever known.. It’s ironic what Wilderness was and became here in this place and how we as people have varying definitions of what it is, was, could have been, should be and currently is.. I prefer a wilderness of abundant green forests with teeming wildlife myself.. While others are determined that a Predator pit and burned out wilderness is preferable.. Real Wilderness then by the UNEP and UNEP clones definition is a dead place, a place of ruin.. That then was my wolfed down and burned down wilderness experience yesterday September 20th 2018.. I will add that the photographers I passed admitted they did not like what they had come to see.. Shameful were their final words…

Share

The Bear Spray That Didn’t Work

It was November 15, 2007, when I wrote an article on my former blog titled, “Bear Spray Versus Bullets.” This article came at a time when government authorities and members of so-called conservation groups (environmentalists) were claiming that bear spray was a better deterrent to saving your life than a gun when being attacked by a bear – specifically a grizzly bear. This difference of opinion has never really been resolved and probably won’t be.

I recall that it was only a couple days after I published that article I got a phone call from one of those “authorities” who was pushing the bear spray for protection meme. I assumed, and still do, this person had a financial stake in bear spray among other personal agenda reasons.

Regardless, I agreed to give him my mailing address and he promptly sent me a garbage pail full of propaganda that upon reading no more convinced me that spray was better than bullets than playing in the middle of Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania would be.

Most have heard by now that an experienced guide and an elk hunter were attacked by two grizzly bears in Wyoming. Both men were heading back into the woods to retrieve an elk the hunter had downed. The guide, Mark Uptain, was killed in the attack. The hunter was injured but not with life-threatening injuries. Exactly what happened at the scene remains to be known.

As is typical, reports as to what happened began making their rounds and what is also typical many of those reports turned out to be false. However, according to a report published in Ammoland, one thing is certain: “Mark Uptain appears to have relied on a can of bear spray to deter the attack. A can of bear spray, with the safety off, was found at the site. The adult sow grizzly had bear spray on her at the scene.”

So, the guide discharged his bear spray, and it got on the bear (although this report doesn’t say what part of the bear had spray on it, one would assume that bear spray placed anywhere except the face would be ineffective.)

Again, we come back to the burning question as to which is more effective in warding off a charging bear – spray or bullets. Maybe the real answer is contained in this same article: “The bear was shot and killed as she attacked investigating Fish and Wildlife personnel.”

It certainly looks like that while authorities were at the scene investigating this event, at least one of the two bears attacked Fish and Wildlife personnel. Why, as I pointed out in my 2007 article that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was heavily promoting spray over bullets, didn’t the FWS officials whip out their cans of bear spray and ward off that attacking bear? Did officials even have bear spray with them? Whether they intended to kill the two bears or not should have been of little concern. How did investigators know this particular bear was the bear that attacked and killed Mark Uptain?

Obviously, the agents doing the investigation believe bullets are better than spray.

Unfortunately, we now have evidence that in this one incident bear spray did not save one man’s life.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the irresponsible claims that spray is better than bullets. As I said in 2007, it depends upon many circumstances and each person has to decide for themselves how to protect themselves. Unfortunately, our own government is doing all that they can to force us to do it their way. Not necessarily the way they would and do it but how the government demands we do it.

The big question then should be this: If bear pepper spray is better for warding off an attacking bear, why did a government official(s) use a gun to do the job?

 

Share

Pick A Side: Eco-Imperialism Or Wildlife Conservation

Hunters conserve and save wildlife when no one else will or can.

Want to save wildlife in wild places? Convince misguided would-be “saviors” that they need to throttle back, cease making death threats and doing other terrorist things.

In just the past few days there has been a spate of Internet and social media attacks on hunters for their choices to participate in legal hunting at various places around the globe.

The attacks come in two basic forms: Ridicule and death threats. Differences of opinion are healthy. Death threats are both sick and illegal.<<<Read More>>>

Share

LA Proposes Ban on All Furs

It seems that today’s writing theme is melding into “As in the days of Noah,” with the presence of decadence and insanity.

God gave us the resources to use for normal and natural reasons. Prohibiting the use thereof for perverse and misguided reasons is as insane as anyone can get.

Insanity is NOT recognized with the insane and is vehemently denied.

“This is something that is not just a good legislative win, it’s a moral win,” Councilman Bob Blumenfield said. “We feel like we’re evolving as a city as people to stop this kind of unnecessary cruelty.””<<<Read More Nonsense>>>

Share

Authorities Kill Two Grizzlies Thought to Have Killed a Wyoming Guide and Wounded a Hunter

As a result of a grizzly bear attack on two men in Wyoming attending to their elk kill, authorities have killed two grizzlies in response. A necropsy might determine if they are the bears responsible.

However, the media and the animal rights advocates who control it took the opportunity to further promote lies about the grizzly bear and its history.

According to a report published by Newscentermaine that came from USA Today, an advocate for the bears states: “…to protect the last of the tens of thousands of bears who used to roam the territory between the Pacific Ocean and the Great Plains.”

There’s plenty wrong with this statement. First of all, the person quoted refers to the grizzly bears in human terms when they state “bears WHO used to roam.” Bears are not whos. They are animals. A proper usage of our language would be “bears THAT used to roam.”

I also take issue with the statement that there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears that roamed the territory from the Pacific to the Great Plains.

I don’t believe there are “tens of thousands” of bears roaming that region today, but certainly, there are thousands with advocates doing all they can to bring the grizzly population to hundreds of thousands if they could. The difference that exists today vs when, according to some, tens of thousands of bears roamed is that there are millions more people living in this area than did when supposedly tens of thousands of bears did.

But did tens of thousands of grizzly bears ever exist in this region? My reasoning and logical conclusions tell a different story. If there were tens of thousands of grizzly bears in this region as is stated when Lewis and Clark undertook their exploration, it would seem that their journals would have contained stories of bear encounters.

If my memory is correct (and it hasn’t been that long since I read the journals last) there is one incident recorded of a man in the expedition who thought he had a hand or a foot “swiped at” by a bear during the night as it hung outside of his tent.

Forcing the existence of large predators into human-settled landscapes is criminal and in certain circumstances, death and destruction of private property by these predators should be the responsibility of those promoting the growth of tens of thousands of these animals where history indicates never existed in the first place.

One more issue to discuss. This same person was quoted as saying, “Killing more bears will not prevent other bear-hunter conflicts, but it may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population around Yellowstone.”

This ignorant, heartless, and senseless statement digs at the heart of the animal protection movement. It does make sense to reason that if there are fewer bears – the result of hunting them – logically, the odds of an encounter with a bear decreases. Will it end all encounters? Of course not.

The sad part of this statement is that it clearly tells us where this person’s priorities exist. They deny a simple math problem of reducing bear numbers but even at the expense of human life, doing anything about the problem “may irrevocably jeopardize the health of the grizzly population…”

Just this morning I was reading one man’s perspective on the government’s forcing of grizzlies and wolves into areas where people live, calling it “unjust and evil.”

At the crux of protecting “endangered species” is the false “best available science” that there once roamed “tens of thousands” of grizzly bears or wolves and that they MUST be restored to those numbers regardless of the human population. That is “unjust and evil.”

The countless journals from explorers and trappers from years ago simply do not support the idealistic theory that wildlife was abundant in the tens of thousands.

Evidently, one man’s life is worth saving two bears. Unjust and evil? You bet!

 

Share

RMEF to Congress: Reauthorize, Fund LWCF

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation calls on Congress to renew and permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) with full, dedicated, annual funding.

“For 52 years now, LWCF has provided critical funding for landscapes, wildlife and riparian habitat, wildlife refuges and national parks, and even community recreation facilities and neighborhood parks,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “These LWCF-funded projects provide long-lasting benefits for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping and all sorts of other recreational pursuits. Without congressional action, LWCF will expire on September 30 so the time to act is now!”

As of early September 2018, LWCF funding provided more than $108 million in funding that assisted 80 different RMEF land projects that permanently protected more than 152,000 acres of wildlife habitat.

“The Priority Recreational Access program is a key facet of the LWCF program,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer.  “It helps maintain and expand access to our public lands.”

One example of the LWCF Priority Recreational Access program is the Middle Creek project in south-central Colorado. RMEF recently teamed up with the Bureau of Land Management and other partners to permanently protect and conserve a 28-acre property that improved access to 8,500 acres of adjacent public land.

LWCF helps conserve wild and undeveloped places, cultural heritage and benefits fish, wildlife and recreation. Its funding comes from royalties paid by energy companies drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The royalties bring in $900 million annually, most of which is diverted to other federal programs.

RMEF urges sportsmen, women and all other Americans who cherish conservation and our public lands to contact their elected representatives and urge them to renew and fully reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Share

Experienced Guide Killed by Attacking Grizzly

And the “brain trust” that have never been attacked by a bear have all the answers.

An experienced guide, while leading a hunter in Wyoming to retrieve a dead elk shot earlier, was attacked by a grizzly and killed. The hunter ran for his life.

Details of what specifically happened are lacking at this point. Some information can be found here, here, and here. At the last link, you can read all the comments from the intelligencers who have all the right answers and who have probably never seen a grizzly bear let alone be attacked by one.

Share