June 25, 2018

Police SWAT Team to Bait and Kill Deer

According to Grand View Outdoors, one town in Western New York is going to use SWAT Team members to bait and kill surplus deer that the town has determined to be causing property damage and a danger to motorists. Isn’t there a better way?

When there are people, hunters, willing to do this for free, why utilize a SWAT Team? Why pay “sharpshooters?” In addition, the more and more we hear about these problems of just too many deer, has anyone considered reimplementing market hunting in some areas?

While the meat will be donated to the food bank, it just seems a waste that hunters/volunteers can’t do the job and keep one deer for themselves and family, if they wish, and pass the rest on to food banks.

Got ideas on this? Tell me about it in the comment section.


Murdering Unborn Babies to Protect Endangered Species

Is it because the population has been mentally manipulated and made prepared for the absurdity to things like Obamacare, global warming, going green, etc.? We are blinded, by design, to all things immoral and just plain wrong. And now we have learned that in Obamacare, money will be guaranteed through the law to be used for “planned parenthood” (murdering unborn babies), but in particular to be used in those areas where growing populations of humans are a threat to endangered species. Can it get any worse than this?

From Front Page:

“That of the funds appropriated under title III of this Act, not less than $575,000,000 should be made available for family planning/reproductive health, including in areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.”

And this comes on the heals of the new Secretary of Interior, Sally Jewell, telling Eskimos who were complaining about going hungry because government prohibits a road to ship food that she’s listened to them enough and that it’s time to pay attention to the animals.

God help us!


CONnecticut: The CONstitution sTATE



Obama Says No More Eating Foods That Cause Global Warming

Obama Administration to Insert Global Warming Activism into Dietary Guidelines Mandated by Congress

Climate Change Activists to Meet Food Police at Closed-Door Meeting March 14

New York, NY / Washington DC – At a closed-door meeting to take place March 14, the Obama Administration’s Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services plan to update the nation’s “dietary guidelines” — a document with significant repercussions for food stamps, military and school meals programs — to include anti-global warming activism.

In an article, “Obama administration pollutes guidelines for healthy eating with unhealthy ideologies,” published Sunday by the Washington Examiner, National Center Senior Fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier says environmental activists within the U.S. government plan to change the nation’s dietary guidelines to promote foods that they believe have “a smaller carbon footprint.”

In the past, says Stier, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to “promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.”

No more, says Stier: “For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ is part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda include ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.'”

What’s more, says Stier, these new guidelines will cost the public money: “By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets,” he says.

“The food guidelines, by law, are supposed to be based on a ‘preponderance of scientific and medical knowledge,'” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research, who has studied climate change polices for over a quarter century. “Science can say with authority that eating green vegetables is good for you. It can’t say that humans are causing catastrophic global warming with any more certainty than it can explain why the planet hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration. Moms and Dads across America deserve — and, as taxpayers, have paid for — dietary guidelines they can use to help them feed their families wisely. No one benefits from causing people to wonder if the nutritional advice they are getting from their government isn’t focused on nutrition at all, but has been polluted by environmental activists.”

The full Washington Examiner article can be read here.

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

Washington-based Amy Ridenour, founding CEO of the National Center and currently co-CEO with her husband, David Ridenour, has been interviewed on television or radio thousands of times, and had her op-ed published in newspapers thousands of times, on nearly every major public policy issue since the National Center’s 1982 founding. Newspapers running her op-eds within the year include the Denver Post, Providence Journal, Las Vegas Sun, Arizona Daily Star, Boston Herald, Deseret News, Duluth News Tribune, Orange County Register, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Omaha World-Herald and many others. She discusses issues on Twitter at @AmyRidenour.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.


Studies Reveal High Stress Levels in Cows Having Once Seen Wolf Attacks

Provided here are links to information and access to two studies completed recently that both show that for cows that have previously experienced an attack, by wolves, on a herd they were a part of, their reactions, including increased stress levels, led to weight loss in calves and reduction of pregnancies.

From a study of Oregon State University: (Links provided in this release)

“When wolves kill or injure livestock, ranchers can document the financial loss,” said Reinaldo Cooke, an animal scientist in OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences. “But wolf attacks also create bad memories in the herd and cause a stress response known to result in decreased pregnancy rates, lighter calves and a greater likelihood of getting sick. It’s much like post-traumatic stress disorder – PTSD – for cows.”<<<Read More of this Press Release>>>

The photograph below, one from the OSU study, shows the reactions by cows that had previously been subjected to wolf attacks, during a simulated exposure to wolves. They bunched into a corner and former a circle. The report stated that cows who had never seen a wolf were “curious” and mostly not phased by the experiment.

Wolf- cow study

Photo by Reinaldo Cooke

From a study conducted by Joseph P. Ramler, Mark Hebblewhite, Derek Kellenberg, and Carolyn Sime – Crying Wolf? A Spatial Analysis of Wolf Location and Depredations on Calf Weight.

Combining a novel panel dataset of 18 Montana ranches with spatial data on known wolf pack locations and satellite-generated climatological data from 1995-2010, we estimate the spatial impact of changing wolf pack locations and confirmed wolf depredations on the weight of beef calves. We find no evidence that wolf packs with home ranges that overlap ranches have any detrimental effects on calf weights. Other non-wolf factors, notably climate and individual ranchspecific husbandry practices, explained the majority of the variation in the weight of calves. However, ranches that experienced a confirmed cattle depredation by wolves had a negative and statistically significant impact of approximately 22 pounds on the average calf weight across their herd, possibly due to inefficient foraging behavior or stress to mother cows. For ranches experiencing confirmed depredation, the costs of these indirect weight losses are shown to potentially be greater than the costs of direct depredation losses that have, in the past, been the only form of compensation for ranchers who have suffered wolf depredations. These results demonstrate a potentially important and understudied aspect of economic conflict arising from the protection and funding of endangered species recovery programs.

View the complete study here.


Wild Dogs in Australia Spread 35 Diseases Including Echinococcus Granulosus

In Australia, the wild dog is called the dingo, wild dog, dingo-dog hybrid or canis lupus familiaris. In short, they are a pest, destructive and carry disease, as can be discovered by visiting the Department of Environment and Primary Industries website.

In addition, it should be noted that there is an out of control amount of interbreeding/crossbreeding of canines going on here, which is presenting a serious problem.

“Wild dogs can have significant impacts on farming communities. They also have the potential to impact human health. All dogs can carry a parasite called the hydatid tapeworm (Echinococcus granulosus), which has the potential to cause fatality in humans.

Another potential risk of wild dog populations is rabies. Although rabies is not found in Australia, canids would be the most important vector of this disease if introduced to Australia.”


Broad Daylight, Wolf Attacks Kills Dog and Carries Away

Couple of thoughts here. One, the “wolf” looks like some kind of wolf hybrid to me, but that doesn’t lesson the damage or the need to rid the landscape of these things. Two, the “native” interviewed in the video didn’t seem to be all that much bothered by the event and one could argue that he thought it quite amusing.


Radio Interview With Ted Lyon, Author The Real Wolf

This is about a 12-minute radio interview with Ted Lyon, co-author of the book, The Real Wolf: The Science, Politics and Economics of Co-Existing With Wolves in Modern Times.

Radio Interview Link


RMEF Achieves 4-Star Charity Rating for Sixth Consecutive Year

MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation again garnered the highest rating available from Charity Navigator, America’s leading charity evaluator.

“This 4-star rating speaks volumes for our staff and volunteers,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “It’s yet another indication of RMEF’s commitment and adherence to sound fiscal management, accountability and transparency.”

Charity Navigator highlights the work of efficient, ethical and open charities. Its stated goal is to provide donors with essential information needed to give them greater confidence in the charitable choices they make.

“Receiving four out of a possible four stars indicates that your organization adheres to good governance and other best practices that minimize the chance of unethical activities and consistently executes its mission in a fiscally responsible way,” said Ken Berger, president and CEO of Charity Navigator. “Only 3 percent of the charities we rate have received at least 6 consecutive 4-star evaluations, indicating that Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation outperforms most other charities in America.”

Charity Navigator data shows RMEF spends only seven percent on administrative costs and 2.8 percent on fundraising costs. Therefore, 90.2 cents of every dollar that RMEF spends go directly into its mission of ensuring the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.

Forbes, Business Week, and Kiplinger’s Financial Magazine, among others, featured Charity Navigator’s unique method of applying data-driven analysis to the charitable sector. Charity Navigator estimates that its 2013 ratings influenced approximately $10 billion in charitable gifts.

“This ‘exceptional’ designation from Charity Navigator differentiates Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation from its peers and demonstrates to the public it is worthy of their trust,” added Berger.

Find details of RMEF’s 4-star rating here.


Fake Conservative Christie’s N.J. Wants to Ban and Confiscate Some Guns

The bill categorizes “varmint hunters” and “tin can plinkers” into “assault firearms” simply because they have a fixed magazine.

But that’s not the half of it. The measure would also forbid grandfathering existing weapons under old provisions, meaning the moment the law goes into effect, the owners of such firearms would become instant felons, subject to a mandatory three- to five-year minimum prison sentence, and a maximum of 10 years behind bars.<<<Read More>>>