December 13, 2018

A Monster Tree

PHOTO: Creativity with antlers and skulls.

MonsterTree

Share

Making For A Warmer Toilet Seat

I suppose one might suggest to make sure the person whose socks these are to be used, didn’t have a bad case of athletes foot….or been wallowing in the poison ivy.

ToiletSeatSocks

Share

Straight Facts: How Coyotes Impact Deer Herds

Clearly, removing predators can increase the number of fawns that survive. We did not “scientifically” measure the increased pleasure of hunters on this farm, but I will report that they were very happy. Why wouldn’t they be? I like seeing deer and work hard to help folks grow healthy deer. Predators, especially coyotes, eat a lot of deer. They also cause deer stress. Stress can keep those deer from expressing their full potential in weight, fawn production, and—yes—antler size!

Does this mean I think all coyotes should be killed? Heck no. I enjoy hearing coyotes; they are part of the wild experience I crave. However, as a biologist and hunter, I know it is important for predator and prey relationships to be kept in balance. This rarely happens “naturally.” There are plenty of records of predators doing extreme damage to prey populations. Most hunters have heard about the substantial decreases in some elk populations, where the wolf populations have been allowed to go unchecked.<<<Read More>>>

Share

More Than One Way for a Dictator to Disregard Constitution and Create His Own Laws

fascistpropaganda - Copy

From the White House:

FACT SHEET: Strengthening the Federal Background Check System to Keep Guns out of Potentially Dangerous Hands

Today, the Administration is announcing two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is proposing a regulation to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law for reasons related to mental health, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed regulation to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information on those persons to the federal background check system.

Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence. While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.

The Administration takes a comprehensive approach to mental health issues by expanding coverage of mental health services so care is affordable, launching a national conversation on mental health to reduce stigma associated with having a mental illness and getting help, directing funds we have now to improve mental health facilities, and proposing more funds be used for efforts such as training additional mental health professionals.

At the same time, the Administration is committed to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun. The federal background check system is the most effective way to assure that such individuals are not able to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. To date, background checks have prevented over two million guns from falling into the wrong hands.

The Administration’s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system. The Administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.

Progress to Strengthen the Federal Background Check System

Over the past year, the Administration has taken several steps to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used to run background checks on those who buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers to make sure they are not prohibited by law from owning a firearm. For example:

The President directed federal agencies to make all relevant records, including criminal history records and information related to persons prohibited from having guns for mental health reasons, available to the federal background check system. This effort is beginning to bear fruit. In the first nine months after the President’s directive, federal agencies have made available to the NICS over 1.2 million additional records identifying persons prohibited from possessing firearms, nearly a 23% increase from the number of records federal agencies had made available by the end of January.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published a letter to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

States are one of the key sources of data on persons prohibited from having guns, including felons and those prohibited for mental health reasons. That’s why the President took action to invest an additional $20 million this year to improve incentives for states to share this information with the federal background check system. In September 2013, DOJ awarded $27.5 million to 42 states and one territory to strengthen the firearms background check system by improving their abilities to share information with the NICS. In addition, the Administration is proposing $50 million for this purpose in FY2014, and Congress should act to provide these critical resources.

Two New Actions to Further Strengthen the Federal Background Check System

Some states have reported that certain barriers under current law make it difficult for them to identify and submit appropriate information to the federal background check system regarding individuals prohibited under federal law from having a gun for mental health reasons. Today, DOJ and HHS are taking steps that will help address these barriers.

Some states have noted that the terminology used by federal law to prohibit people from purchasing a firearm for certain mental health reasons is ambiguous. Today, DOJ is issuing a proposed rule to make several clarifications. For example, DOJ is proposing to clarify that the statutory term “committed to a mental institution” includes involuntary inpatient as well as outpatient commitments. In addition to providing general guidance on federal law, these clarifications will help states determine what information should be made accessible to the federal background check system, which will, in turn, strengthen the system’s reliability and effectiveness.

Some states have also said that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (HIPAA) privacy provisions may be preventing them from making relevant information available to the background check system regarding individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm for mental health reasons. In April 2013, HHS began to identify the scope and extent of the problem, and based on public comments is now issuing a proposed rule to eliminate this barrier by giving certain HIPAA covered entities an express permission to submit to the background check system the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands. The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm. Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules.

Calling on Congress to Act

While the President and the Vice President continue to do everything they can to reduce gun violence, Congress must also act. Passing common-sense gun safety legislation – including expanding background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime – remains the most important step we can take to reduce gun violence. The vast majority of Americans support these critical measures, which would protect our children and our communities without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.

In addition, the President’s FY 2014 Budget proposes a new $130 million initiative to address several barriers that may prevent people – especially youth and young adults – from getting help for mental health problems. The President and the Vice President continue to call on Congress to appropriate funds for these important purposes.

Share

People Are Vanishing – Unexplained

VIDEO: Unexplained? I have heard some people want to jump on the theory that it’s wolves and/or large predators and the government is covering it up. All the abductions take place in national parks and many are children. While I won’t discard a theory of large predators, there are several other theories, the bulk of which most are not willing to consider, much because they don’t know anything about them, will not search for the truth but are willing to pass it off as ET, UFO abductions.

Here’s a very quickly thrown together list of possible causes, in no particular order:
1. Mind Control
2. Illuminati – known for child abductions to be used as human sacrifices as part of their Satanic rituals.
3. HAARP – Microwave, Laser, mind control, weather manipulation (see video)
4. Demonic activity – Nephilim, demonic possession of both humans and animals, Bible, prophecy
5. Government activities
6. Large predators
7. Alien abductions
8. Big Foot

And I know there are readers who can add to this list and explanations. Please do so in the comments section.

Share

Polar Vortex: I Voted For It Before I Voted Against It

This is hilariously funny and yet few Americans or people globally will really get the fact that we are being conned by the masters of con.

“Open my eyes that I may see,
Glimpses of Truth Thou hast for me;
place in my hands the wonderful key
that shall unclasp and set me free.”

According to Ed Driscoll and information in his article published at Pajamas Media, back in 1974 Time Magazine published an article blaming global COOLing on the Polar Vortex. In case you don’t remember and I suspect the largest number of “True Believers” of global warming are too young to remember, it was back in the 1970s that we were all going to freeze to death because of global cooling.

Ah, yes! That darned ole, Polar Vortex! It was going to freeze us all out.

‘Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.’

God save us! Well, maybe he did, or was it Al Gore and Algorism.

Now, Time Magazine is saying that the Polar Vortex is the result of global WARMING.

‘But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles.’

And there’s that “inconvenient truth” again. It sucks when the inconvenient truth is that you’re a stupid, lying shill for the ruling establishment, comprised partially by those wishing to scare the living money right out of you; to cause fear and disruption of your life.

It was a big, Big, BIg, BIG lie in 1974 and it’s an even bigger lie today. Algorism: and Time Magazine has it bad.

Share

Judge Says Emanualland Can’t Bar Selling Guns in City

CHICAGO (AP) – A federal judge has potentially opened a new market to gun dealers after ruling as unconstitutional Chicago ordinances that aim to reduce gun violence by banning their sale within the city’s limits.

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said Monday that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it’s also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. However, Chang said he would temporarily stay the effects of his ruling, meaning the ordinances can stand while the city decides whether to appeal.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Deer Pests? Time Marches On

Follow this link to an article to read at Field and Stream about how Time Magazine(behind pay wall) published an article about the overgrown populations of deer.

There are some locations around the country where deer are a “pest” and for various reasons. Some people don’t like running into them with their automobiles, while others get angry over deer eating their expensive shrubbery around their houses. In addition, too many deer often spells trouble with diseases like Lyme disease.

I’m not really opposed to any of the author’s suggestions as to what hunters could do to alleviate this “pest problem,” but I would like to comment on a couple of issues that I’m not quite so excited about and would like to offer a bit of a reality check.

First the author seems agog over the fact that Time Magazine actually published an article on deer and did it, “Fairly and thoroughly reported,” and that, “hunting is indeed the most effective, cheap, and humane method for dealing with critters when they become pests.”

I wouldn’t be so quick as to give Time Magazine (a creation of Henry R. Luce) accolades for anything that might appear to be in support of hunting, i.e. American heritage, freedoms, or North American Model for Wildlife Management. It’s just not in their blood (literally). The author seems convinced that, at least in this one article, Time is patting hunters on the back for the work that is done in the management of wild game. While it may be true that Time appears to be patting us on the back with one hand, it’s what they are doing with the other hand that is of the utmost concern. My recommendation is to take the article for what it’s worth and do not believe Time is on our side, ever.

In addition, if Time is now sending out kudos to the hunting community for a job well done, then why would the author exclaim that hunting is the preferred method of wildlife population control “when they become pests?” The historic reputation of the North American Model is that ongoing management, including the harvesting of game, prevents animals like deer from becoming pests. Ignorant environmentalists, spoon fed from birth about balance of nature, believe if man left these creatures alone they would create their own population controls and balancing. So, how is that working out? The question then must become why are all these places now faced with what to do about nuisance wildlife that wouldn’t have been a nuisance had the people and local governments allowed and provided for the proper management of these wild animals?

Sorry, I don’t buy a hunting license in order to become a pest control man.

A second issue talked about in this article is about the author challenging the hunters to do their part and step up to the plate to do something about too many deer, as if too many deer where the responsibility, or the lack thereof, of hunters. In my years of writing about these problems, where town after town struggles to find ways of dealing with “pest” deer, it is my impression that hunters would be more than eager to step up to the plate and do the right thing (chuckling here a bit) and kill deer. But the hunter is not allowed to. That’s the reason the deer are a pest now. How difficult is that to grasp hold of?

I’ll not debate all the reasons why the hunter has been banned from “doing the right thing”, but to think that the solution is as easy as getting enough hunters to kill a bunch of pests, is a bit naive and reflects lack of education as to the facts and history of dealing with overgrown populations of game species.

In the vast majority of those towns that decide deer need to be killed, they hire “sharpshooters”, not necessarily hunters because don’t you see, those who are at most at fault for allowing deer to become pests, hate the hunter, much because they are an icon of American Heritage; something that once made America great. Whether they like the “sharpshooter” is irrelevant because the anti humans who hate the hunters will do anything except employ the talents and experience of hunters to do the job, probably at no charge, other than being allowed to take home a deer or two. This is spiteful hatred on their part.

Get rid of the ridiculous bans on hunting in many of these areas, and tell the landowners who bar hunters from accessing their lands to shut up and stop complaining about too many deer, disease and auto collisions. If they want the problem solved, let the hunters come on their land and do it. As a landowner you can pick and choose who you will and will not allow to hunt your land.

But not to get away from the topic at hand, hunters didn’t create this pest problem, but if regulations and anti hunting/environmentalists would cease with their hatred of proven and humane wildlife management, many of these problems would go away or better yet, would never have occurred……and with little cost.

It isn’t just a matter of whether the hunters will take responsibility. It’s whether government, dictated to by environmentalists, will allow hunters to take responsibility. Why not ask those responsible for the problem what they are going to do about it?

Share

New Book Release: The Real Wolf

RealWolfThe Real Wolf
The Science, Politics, and Economics of Co-Existing with Wolves in Modern Times

by Ted B. Lyon
and Will N. Graves

edited by Linda Grosskopf and Nancy Morrison

foreword by Tom Remington

published by Ted B. Lyon

How have thriving elk populations of thousands dwindled to mere hundreds in just a matter of years? Author Ted B. Lyon asserts the wolf is at fault. He also blames the wolf for the rampant spread of infectious diseases among livestock populations and the decimation of wild deer, moose, sheep, and domestic animals alike. A trial lawyer with over 37 years of litigation experience, Lyon proves his case in The Real Wolf: The Science, Politics, and Economics of Co-Existing with Wolves in Modern Times. In this detailed yet easy-to-read essay collection, authors Ted B. Lyon and Will N. Graves investigate the majesty and myths surrounding wolves in the United States and offer a new, true picture of the wolf in contemporary America. The Real Wolf is an in-depth study of the impact wolves as a federally protected species have had on big game and livestock populations. Each chapter in the book is meticulously researched and written by authors and scientists who have spent years studying wolves and wolf behavior. Contributing authors Rob Arnaud, Dr. Arthur Bergerud, Karen Budd-Falen, Jess Carey, Dr. Matthew A. Cronin, Dr. Valerius Geist, Don Peay, Laura Schneberger, Heather Smith-Thomas, and Cat Urbigkit each describe a unique aspect of the wolf in the United States. The Real Wolf does not call for the eradication of wolves from the United States, but rather advocates a new system of species “management” that would allow wolves, game animals, and farmers to live in harmony. <<<More Information and to Purchase>>>

Share

Romance Biology About Wolves

By James Beers

*Editor’s Note* – James Beers has published a rebuttal to a Washington Post opinion piece, presented as factual by the Post, by Jane Goodall, monkey expert, about wolves. Here is the link to the Goodall piece.

It is presented as a photo essay with captions along the right hand side. The comments and information Beers presents about Goodall, are found in those captions.

A Letter to the Editor of the Washington (DC) Post re: a 5 January 2014 article by Jane Goodall on WOLVES.

A Romance Novella about Wolves

That Jane Goodall writes lurid nature propaganda (For wolves a struggle to survive, 5 Jan.) about select species is no surprise: that The Washington Post publishes such stories as factual about wolves is surprising.

Where to begin? The “Buffer Zones” around federal lands are private property under state jurisdiction. If Ms. Goodall decries local communities, through their governments, managing wolves that harm their economies, their hunting and their “domestic Tranquility”; please remind her that the USA is not some African country without our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Wolf packs do not “disintegrate”, like all other animal species they fluctuate like the weather for almost as many disparate reasons. Silly assertions like a den site “occupied since the 1940’s” (i.e. 70 years) are akin to climate change assertions of the past 40 years meant only to line the pockets of researchers, increase bureaucratic power over the citizenry and gain re-election for career politicians.

We are to bemoan the fluctuation of “the most famous wolf pack on earth”? Who regrets the demise of the Lolo Idaho elk herd, or the N Yellowstone elk herd, or Minnesota moose: all of which have been eradicated to levels wherein millions of dollars in state license revenue and hundreds of millions in revenue to rural communities have been wiped out by and for as long as introduced wolves remain at high, unregulated densities.

Wolf counts down? Earth to Ms. Goodall; wolf counting like wolf hunting is a notoriously difficult matter and to think it can be done consistently and comparably year-to-year is simply ludicrous. This goes too for the “sky-is-falling” warning about sightings going down as a cry for even more federal intervention.

Yellowstone wolves have not declined because of hunting et al around the Park. Wolves have declined because they have eradicated the once-vast elk herds and moose that fed their population explosion for 20 years and are no longer available to feed them.

Finally, wolves were not “hunted” to extinction in the Lower 48. They were purposely and with great effort of time and expense eradicated over a period of 300 years by our wise forefathers that would not tolerate the dangers (over 30 deadly diseases and infections, human attacks and livestock losses, etc.) wolves create. When you assert that wolves “are beneficial to the ecosystem” you are merely dressing up your personal desires with a patina of meaningless gibberish: your wolf “ecosystem” is no more legitimate or desirable than my hunting/ranching/rural jobs/human safety/recreational safety “ecosystem”.

I suggest, as a Minnesotan that misses the moose that protected wolves have eradicated, that readers of the Post and Ms. Goodall interested in wolves disregard her African brand of environmental species tyranny and embrace the American system. Have the state agencies of Virginia and Maryland and the District wildlife agency steal some money (like the federal wolf introducers did from the States to introduce the wolves out West) and trap some wolves in Canada (they are bigger and fiercer there) and release them in western Virginia and Maryland. (Question: why has the East been spared this “wonder” to date?) Soon enough: dog owners, hunters, families with kids, livestock producers, campers, hikers, fishermen, the elderly and many others will join Western and Midwestern rural communities in howling to severely reduce wolves in some areas and eradicate them in others.

Those that think majoritarian rule should be used to forcibly impose wolves on their neighbors should remember Prohibition and all of its similar claims and unintended consequences.

Jim Beers
5 January 2014

FYI My Bio:

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.

Share