December 17, 2018

An Acid Rain Sob Story

Here’s an example of new-science scientists attempting to explain away a “problem” without considering all the contributing factors. Ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation?

The article laments the destruction of “acid rain” from the 1960s to the present and, of course, blames this acid rain on man.

However, in the Northeast, the red spruce is making a comeback and researchers say they really don’t know why. But here’s the ridiculous statement that is made in the article:

Thanks to tree rings, there’s a 200-year record of how fast red spruce grows, and they are “growing better than they ever have in the recorded history,” says Schaberg. “Trees now are growing twice as well as their maximum ever.”

This statement was qualified by this one:

Likens is still following pH levels and he says we’ve come a long way; the rain is about 3 or 4 times less acidic than it was.

“But we’re still two or three or four times more acid than we should be if the atmosphere were not polluted,” he emphasizes.

One has to wonder just exactly what effects “acid rain” or the PH of water coming out of the sky really has on the red spruce. If the acid level is still 2-4 times higher than it is supposed to be, then how much, if any, is “acid rain” hurting the red spruce? After all, they said the acid rain killed the red spruce.

What’s completely missing from this entire article and not mentioned in any way by the scientists involved in the study, is how the chemicals being dumped on Americans from the skies above are affecting us and the plants on the ground.

Is this nonsense about climate change being the factor of why the red spruce in now growing faster than at any other time, agenda driven, new-science, i.e. outcome based in an attempt to support a fake global warming con job? Anyone with 5 minutes of time on their hands can very easily discover that it is no longer any big secret that the U.S. is filling our skies with chemicals from jet planes. They say it’s about “seeding” the clouds and skies to help “control” weather. Is it?

Until researchers and reporters are willing to explore the entirety of the influencing factors of weather, climate, “acid rain,” natural and man made, I put very little stock in anything found in this article. It’s utter nonsense.

Share

Forest Rehabilitation, Elk Nutrition Study Highlight RMEF’s 2014 Grants for Idaho

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation awarded $276,584 in funding to Idaho for a handful of wildfire restoration efforts as well as habitat enhancement projects and research focused on a declining elk population.

The 2014 grants will positively affect nearly 76,000 acres in Ada, Adams, Bingham, Blaine, Boise, Bonneville, Camas, Clearwater, Elmore, Idaho, Owyhee, Shoshone, Teton and Valley Counties. There is also one project of statewide interest.

“Wildfire decimated huge swaths of Idaho’s landscape over the past year. This funding includes more than $67,000 that will directly help rehabilitate and restore crucial forest habitat for elk and other wildlife,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We also made a significant contribution focusing on elk populations in the Clearwater Basin where herds are struggling because of habitat issues and an increasing wolf population.”

RMEF volunteers in Idaho raised the project funding through banquets, membership drives and other activities.

“Idaho elk country is getting this shot in the arm thanks to the enthusiasm and hard work of our volunteers. Year-in and year-out, they continue to make a difference for elk and other wildlife in their own backyard,” added Allen.

Allen also thanked RMEF volunteers and members around the nation for their dedication to conservation.

RMEF grants will fund the following projects, listed by county:

Adams County—Treat 5,000 acres with prescribed fire on the Sawtooth National Forest as part of a larger multi-year effort to improve forage and habitat conditions for elk and other wildlife while also providing habitat for the threatened Northern Idaho ground squirrel that requires fire to improve and maintain its habitat.

Boise County—Place collars on up to 20 elk calves to determine if a 40 percent reduction of the wolf population in the Sawtooth Elk Zone on the Boise National Forest increased calf survival/recruitment; survey and apply treatment for noxious weeds along 103 miles of motorized trails across the Idaho City Ranger District on the Boise National Forest; and provide funding to complete the exclusion fence on the east side of Highway 21 through the Boise River Wildlife Management area that helps guide elk and mule deer to the underpass to increase public safety, reduce wildlife mortality and maintain landscape integrity (also affects Ada County).

Bingham County—Restore four non-functioning water guzzlers, expand the surface area of water catchment aprons to improve wildlife distribution and lure them away from private agricultural lands, and install livestock exclusion fences around guzzlers on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land west of Pocatello.

Bonneville County—Provide funding as part of a multi-year-year effort to improve aspen habitat on nine units in the upper basins of Fall and Bear Creeks affecting 1,500 acres eight miles southwest of Swan Valley on the Caribou National Forest; and apply burning to material previously cut and left on the ground as part of effort to remove encroaching conifers from aspen stands in important habitat for elk calving and mule deer fawning in the Teton Ranger District on the Targhee National Forest (also affects Teton County).

Camas County—Seed bluebunch wheatgrass, plant bitterbrush seedlings and treat noxious weeds to restore 975 acres of elk winter range in the Wood River Valley within the 2013 Beaver Creek Wildfire area on the Sawtooth National Forest (also affects Blaine County).

Clearwater County—Provide funding for extensive landscape and elk habitat restoration in the Clearwater Basin of north-central Idaho where elk populations continue their steadily decline over the past three decades because of a substantial loss of early-seral habitat, human pressures and the reintroduction of wolves (also affects Idaho County); and provide Torstenson Family Endowment (TFE) funding for a multi-year elk nutrition study in the Clearwater Basin that includes capturing and collaring wild elk, establishing a land use habitat matrix and applying the new Oregon-Washington elk nutrition and habitat models for a monitoring program (also affects Idaho County).

Elmore County—Provide TFE funding to plant bitterbrush seedlings across 25,000 acres of elk and mule deer habitat on BLM lands in the Pony Complex Wildfire area to enhance other post-fire rehabilitation treatments completed in the area; and hand-plant bitterbrush and sagebrush on 10,000 acres, hand-plant riparian vegetation along the South Fork Boise River and tributaries, and aerially seed 6,000-10,000 acres as part of continuing effort to rehabilitate Boise National Forest lands following the 2013 Pony and Elk Complex wildfires.

Idaho County—Provide TFE funding to burn approximately 18,000 acres in the Clearwater Basin on 10-units consisting of elk crucial winter and summer range on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest as part of an ongoing effort to improve elk habitat (also affects Clearwater County).

Owyhee County—Slash and girdle juniper on 921 acres in the Pole Creek area in preparation for future prescribed burning on BLM land located a few miles from the 2007 Crutcher Complex Wildfire as part of a 10-15 year project to restore and maintain shrub steppe and aspen communities; and hand-plant 14,000 bitterbrush seedlings on 700 acres in the Jarbidge Foothills on BLM land that burned in the 2007 Murphy Complex wildfire.

Shoshone County—Aerially ignite 1,200 acres to improve big game forage, stand conditions and reduce natural fuels on elk summer range within the Heller Creek and Wisdom Creek drainages on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest as part of a larger project to treat 3,750 acres with prescribed fire resulting in up to 21 percent of the project area becoming forage openings; and apply prescribed burning to 1,500 acres in the Lost Creek area of the Coeur d’Alene Mountains as part of a 5-10 year habitat enhancement project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest.

Valley County—Provide funding for Idaho Youth Outdoors’ youth ice fishing day to get kids outdoors and introduce them to the sport.

Statewide—Provide funding for the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council, an association of approximately 30 hunting, fishing and trapping organizations across Idaho, that reviews issues such as Chronic Wasting Disease, game farms, habitat challenges, fishing and hunting access, and big game tag availability with the Idaho Legislature, the Department of Fish and Game and sportsmen and women.

Conservation projects are selected for grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities. RMEF volunteers and staff select hunting heritage projects to receive funding.

Partners for the Idaho projects include the Boise, Caribou-Targhee, Idaho Panhandle, Nez Perce-Clearwater, Payette and Sawtooth National Forests; Bureau of Land Management; Idaho Department of Fish and Game and various sportsmen, wildlife, civic and government organizations.

Since 1985, RMEF and its partners completed 446 different conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Idaho with a combined value of more than $56.4 million that also opened or secured public access to more than 22,000 acres.

Torstenson Family Endowment funding is only used to further RMEF’s core mission programs of permanent land protection, habitat stewardship, elk restoration and hunting heritage.

Share

Protecting Bears Causes Restricted Access to Forest

It appears that the idiots bent on the protection of bears, i.e. the Humane Society of the United States wanting to ban bear hunting in Maine, through their efforts to make sure there are millions of bears to attack and harm people, are also causing the restriction of use and access to the same forests their protected bears live.

In this article about “How to Avoid a Bear Attack,” we read:

Stay away from bear feeding areas such as berry patches, fresh burns, lake shores, alpine meadows, streams full of spawning fish or avalanche slopes when possible. If you see bear scat, tracks or claw marks on trees, move elsewhere. Also leave if you encounter a fresh kill or places where leaves and branches have been piled up, possibly over a carcass. A bear could be lurking nearby.

Avoid walking after dark in bear country and do not travel alone. Studies show that groups of four or more people are seldom attacked. Make noise by talking, singing or playing music, anything to alert bears to your presence. Most will move away if they hear you and are not taken by surprise.

Always sleep inside a tent, but keep your cooking and food storage area 50-75 yards away when possible. Wear a hat while cooking so food odors don’t concentrate in your hair. Leave the hat at the cooking area. Avoid greasy or smelly foods such as bacon, sausage or fish. Store leftovers in airtight containers far away and wash dishes carefully to avoid leaving scent or grease on them.

A friend, who sent me the link to this story along with the pictures that follow, made the following comment which pretty well sums up what’s going on.

In other woods stay the hell out of the woods… at the same time the folks are building trails galore (with taxpayers money) and encouraging more outdoor activities (promoted with taxpayers money) the animal rights folks want to increase (quickly double?) the Maine bear population with hunting restrictions. And it looks like we will need more LAWS (not just warnings or encouragement) to keep us out of the way of any critter that wants to use the area.

Bear1
Bear2
Bear3

Share

Marbut Will Be Independent Candidate For Montana House Seat

Dear MSSA Friends,

Two years ago, I ponied up to be the Republican candidate for the Montana House of Representatives in House District 99 (where I live), even though I knew it would be a long shot because it was about a 70% Democrat district. The election results were about what you’d expect for an R running in a 70% D district.

In this current election cycle, the redistricting commission has redrawn the district, as all Montana districts have been redrawn. Where I live used to be in HD 99; the district is now HD 94. It has gone from 70% D to about 55% D. The incumbent elected last time, liberal lady lawyer Kimberly Dudik, filed to run in HD 94. A Republican nobody had heard of filed to run against her.

Then, the Republican either withdrew or was taken off the ballot, depending on whose story you hear. In any case, that left a free ride for Dudik – nobody else on the ballot in November.

Some people contacted me to seek my permission for them to collect signatures on petitions to place me on the November ballot as an Independent candidate. I agreed to allow that, but warned them that I would probably not have the time and energy (too busy; too many birthdays) to run as aggressive a campaign as I did last time.

The signatures were collected and verified by the Missoula County Elections Office and the Secretary of State. I’ve submitted the necessary paperwork and filing fee to the Secretary of State, and required initial forms to the Commissioner of Political Practices.

The Secretary of State’s office called me late this afternoon to inform me that all the “i”s were dotted and “t”s crossed and I WILL be on the ballot for HD 94 this November as an Independent candidate for HD 94. (My mother as said that I need to have my head examined. She may be right.)

Sooner or later, voters and the media will ask why I’m running as an Independent candidate. My answer will be that in my long political experience I’ve seen far too many examples of where the existing major political parties put the welfare of the party ahead of the welfare of the people. For example, I saw that when I ran as a Democrat in the early 1980s and the Democrat party informed me that if I was elected I’d be expected to vote in the Legislature how the Party told me to vote. We agreed to disagree and the next week all of my campaign signs were destroyed. I saw that when I was a delegate to the Montana Republican presidential nominating convention and the Republican insiders enforced a very unfair process to make sure candidate Ron Paul was shut out and did not get Montana delegates to the national nominating convention.

My chief interest is individual liberty, not the welfare or power of political parties.

I think an Independent candidate will play well in HD 94 in November. The Republican voters won’t vote for a Dem, so they’ll vote for me. By November, the unaligned voters, and even many traditional Democrats, should be sick of Obama and the Democrat Party. They’ll be glad to see an independent on the ballot. We’ll see. It should be interesting.

So, there you have it. I’ll get back to you when the dust settles from the Primary about fundraising for the campaign, and what you can do to help. (For any of you absolutely champing at the bit to donate [campaigns cost money], I’ll include some info below.)

Best wishes,

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.MTPublish.com

==================

I have opened a campaign account. If you’re eager to get in on this, you could send a check made payable to “Marbut for House”, and mailed to:

Gary Marbut
P.O. Box 16106
Missoula, Montana 59808

The max any individual may contribute is $170. A husband and wife may contribute $170 each, but it should be in two checks, just to keep it clean.

No checks drawn on the account of a corporation, please. Business checks are okay, as long as the business is not a corporation.

For any checks of $35 or more, I am obligated to report the Name, Address, Occupation and Employer of the donor to the Commissioner of Political Practices. If your name and address are on your check and your donation is $35 or more, please also write your occupation and employer in the Memo line or an included piece of paper.

Thanks!!

Share

Top Ten Reasons to Oppose President Obama’s New Climate Regulations

Washington DC – President Obama’s new climate rules for existing power plants, expected to be announced by the Environmental Protection Agency Monday morning, are unnecessary, says a new paper released today by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The paper, “Top Ten Reasons Washington Should Not Impose New Global Warming Laws or Regulations,” explains, among other things:

The Earth hasn’t warmed since the Clinton Administration;

New global warming laws and regulations harm people, and harm lower-income and minorities disproportionately;

U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions already fell 12.6 percent between 2005 and 2012, while worldwide emissions went up 17.7 percent during the same period;

The climate models upon which President Obama’s belief in human-caused catastrophic global warming is based do not work – since 1979, over 96 percent of climate models predicted more warming by now than has taken place;

Claims that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming theory are propaganda.

And more.

“President Obama is going to hurt the American people today,” said Amy Ridenour, author of the paper and chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Jobs will be lost and electricity prices will rise, and it’s all for nothing. Even if the alarmist position on global warming were to turn out to be true – and it hasn’t been coming true – the most optimistic case is that President Obama’s regulations would have a negligible impact on global warming. So why does he insist on doing this?”

“I wrote a top ten list of reasons why Washington should not impose new global warming regulations or laws,” Ridenour added. “But it could easily have been a top twenty or thirty. Maybe I’ll write a sequel.”

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, three percent from foundations, and three 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.

Share

S.F. Don’t Know How to Stop Woman Who Breeds, Releases Wolves Rats

SAN FRANCISCO — Authorities in San Francisco say their hands are tied when it comes to stopping a woman who has been breeding hundreds of rats in her home and then releasing them into public parks.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Connecticut Overrun With Bears

There have been more than 3,400 reports of bear sightings in the last year in Connecticut, and most of them are in the northwest corner.<<<Read More>>>

Share

GASP! Fake Polar Bear Scientists Provide Fake Polar Bear Science for Fake ESA Listing

“As with the hockey stick graph and many other elements of the concocted story, honest scientists working in the finest tradition of skeptical scientific inquiry, started to unravel fuzzy numbers and lies. One such hero is polar bear scientist Dr. Susan Crockford, who publishes the website Polar Bear Science. In it she documents how a scientist responsible for an alarmist lowball estimate of polar bear population is backing away from numbers that she has been questioning:”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Is Hunter License Fees Being Used to Feed Predators?

It seems to be the trend all across the nation. State after state announcing plans to reduce game tags and cut back on the number of game animals allowed to be harvested, seriously cutting into hunter opportunities.

New Mexico is considering cutting way back on the number of deer that will be harvested due to a population decrease. It seems that any talk of lost opportunity and game population reductions is quickly attributed to lost habitat and, of course, global warming, but with the nationwide movement to protect large predators isn’t much of the loss of game animals due to predator protection? Aren’t hunter license fees essentially going to providing feed for over protected predators?

Share

PA Bear Population Has Quadrupled…….Without Baiting

“Pennsylvania’s black bear population has nearly quadrupled since the 1970s, and black bears have reestablished themselves in upper Bucks County. Officials say this leads to more frequent sightings in suburban areas, particularly as young male bears forage for food and free land in early summer.”<<<Read More>>>

Those in Maine fighting to rid the landscape of their perceived inhumane bear hunting, argue that the implementation of bait to lure a bear to a shooting area, causes bears to get fatter and thus increases the number of offspring causing the bear population to rise which results in increased encounters between humans and the beast. If that is true, which it’s not, then how do you explain Pennsylvania’s claim that their bear population has grown by a multiple of 4 and they don’t utilize bear baiting as a management tool?

Share