August 27, 2014

One Person’s Dispute Over Scientific Fact Does Not a Scientific Fact Make

God, I’m confused this morning. Thank God, we can still submit letters to editors of local and national newspapers. And, thank God, he gave me a brain to understand nonsense and avoid it.

In another letter to the editor of the Bangor Daily News, a writer states that a statement made by representatives of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) that baiting bears for short periods of time over many years in a row, has no measurable impact on bear populations. The writer claims the statement was, “nothing more than an untested hypothesis.” And to prove that this is an “untested hypothesis”, the writer uses an untested hypothesis and states that if a department that most believe operates under the pretext of scientific approach can’t produce a scientific “study” the claim is no good. There! That’s settled.

Let’s not consider a 40-year ongoing bear study by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries as a “scientific study.” What nonsense!

Confused Man Hates on Humans, Adores Bears

In what can only be described as the ramblings of a confused man, a letter to the editor in Maine Environmental News, describes the human being as anything but…..well, human, even going to the point of saying there are just too many humans. And yet, he chooses to live and add to his perceived problem.

Dare I say, though, that while the writer of this letter points out many truths in what has become of our society, he becomes confused in his thinking that bears and humans need to live “harmoniously.” I think, if you listen closely while reading his creation, you can hear in the background, “I’d like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony.”

And so what’s really wrong? What’s wrong is, mostly what Mark Twain said about being successful; “You need two things: ignorance and confidence.” While this person exudes the confidence to express his beliefs, he somehow thinks he can find his answer by living “harmoniously” with bears (ignorance).

Nope! Nothing wrong here. Move along now. Move along.

GettingAlong

Washington Authorities Target Sheep-Killing Wolves. Wolf Protectors Use Event to Fundraise

According to a Spokesman Review article, authorities in Washington State have decided to order helicopters and shooters to kill four members of the so-called Huckleberry Pack because of persistent depredation by wolves on sheep in the area. This is why forcing large predators into human-settled landscapes is a non-starter.

As is ALWAYS the case, those groups who make a living pretending to care for wild animals, went to work to feverishly do all that they could to raise money. Wolf pimps is what they are, and if it isn’t a wolf, it’s a grizzly bear, a piping plover, a Canada lynx or any other species that can be exploited for profits.

In an email that was sent out by Predator Defense Fund, the effort to stop the destruction of private property by wolves, was called “a secret operation” because Washington officials didn’t take 10 years to consult with the fascists of predator protection first.

The remainder of the email if full of balderdash aimed at playing on the emotions of ignorant people eager to give their money away to fraudulent groups like Predator Defense Fund. Isn’t that why these criminals jump on every opportunity to make money?

Hat tip goes out to Shake, Rattle and Troll

Feds Weigh Moving Grizzlies Into Washington

“It marks the potential turning point in the decades-long decline of the last grizzly bears remaining on the U.S. West Coast,” Joe Scott, international conservation director of Conservation Northwest, said in a written statement. “Without recovery efforts, these bears may soon be gone forever.”<<<Read More>>>

Wolves, Lead, Hunting & Animal Worship

By Jim Beers
August 21, 2014

I recently circulated an article describing the closure of the last lead smelter in the United States by the federal government based on recent, impossible-to-comply-with Federal environmental regulations. I had received this article from a brother-in-law who, as a retired commercial airline pilot, was primarily concerned about the necessary use of lead in every gallon of aviation gasoline and the effect of increasing prices on airline transportation costs.

As an American hunter and target shooter, I was concerned about not only inevitable increased costs for all manner of ammunition; but also about seeing another element, vital to American society, becoming something America must rely on others providing us through war and peace and political stress. In addition to airplane fuel and hunting, lead is necessary for radiology accessories; batteries; and National Defense weapons, ammunition and support necessities. Thus our future use of lead (a very heavy and therefore expensive item to transport in any manner) will reflect the price of that transportation plus the costs imposed by importers; manufacturer acquisition; customer price competition for products; AND government effects like taxes, import restrictions and quality requirements.

The article and my short note introducing it mentioned that this was also a back-door opportunity for the current federal anti-gun/2nd Amendment Administration in Washington to diminish gun control by making ammunition costs prohibitive. To my surprise, I have received a number of angry e-mails telling me there was no evidence of this being any sort of gun control move. What was most stunning to me was that three of those readers are hunters and shooters. That they would not connect, the attitude of a White House that concocted and covered-up the Fast and Furious scandal while clandestinely negotiating and drafting a UN Small Arms Treaty that would undercut the 2nd Amendment with this opportune elimination of any domestic lead supply set me to thinking.

As our federal government breeds, introduces, spreads and protects wolves over more and more of The Lower 48 States; as they increase and protect deadly and dangerous grizzly bears over increasing rural areas; and as State governments protect and spread mountain lions and coyotes by both total protection and restricting methods of take: the availability of reasonably priced ammunition takes on a surprising urgency:

1. As protected predators increase in numbers and densities, human encounters with children, dog walkers, recreationists, hunters, joggers, fishermen, ranchers, rural residents and others increase and guns are often the only and best final protection during such encounters.

2. As protected predators ravage livestock, guns are often the only or the best property protection tool for animal owners.

3. As protected predators decrease big game (moose, elk, and deer), big game hunting declines.

4. As protected predators kill hunting dogs (among others from watchdogs and pets to show dogs and service dogs) small game hunting declines because of a reluctance to expose the dog to a horrible death by wolves, the growing reluctance of adults to hunt in wolf country, and the reluctance of parents to let rural children and young adults to hunt or otherwise recreate outdoors alone or unsupervised.

5. As #’s 3 and 4 above evolve, current Federal Excise Taxes on ammunition sales (called Pittman Robertson funding) will decrease. These taxes are intended by law only for State Wildlife Programs for Wildlife Restoration. These funds that are hundreds of million annually and which require matching state funds from hunting license sales revenue are the backbone of State wildlife programs and protect these programs from the diversions, corruption and thefts that were once common in state wildlife bureaucracies.

Wolves are THE most destructive (to human safety, game animals, livestock, and dogs) and widespread of the predators spreading across the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States today. Unavailable or prohibitively expensive ammunition makes personal and family protection less available to rural Americans and hunters. They are simultaneously more vulnerable to attack as livestock are ravaged, dogs are killed and game animals and hunting declines (as government attributes it to “evolving ideas about animals”, “video games”, “progressive thinking”, “”ecosystem awareness”, and fantasies about “apex predators” and “trophic cascades”, etc.)

Despite all this – government gun control; government closing the last lead smelter in the US; and the continuing spread of deadly and destructive predators by government – hunters and shooters, much less rural Americans neither mention nor oppose what government is doing. For some it is because they voted for these things or current politicians in the past; for others it is because their relatives and friends will think poorly of them; for yet others it is because they don’t want to rock the government boat that they depend on more and more; for some it is because they really accept the inevitability of a world without guns in the hands of the citizenry; or they fear a world where government is not fully empowered to “restore native ecosystems” no matter the cost to humans or human society. It is actually a toxic mix of animal worship and a movement by the most powerful among us to make citizens more and more subject to government authority and power.

Wolves, closing the last lead smelter, and hunting are like the racial riots surging in Ferguson, Missouri as I write this. “You are either on this side or that side.” “You either believe this account or that account.” “Either you support (hunting, reasonably priced ammunition and guns, wolves, law-based investigation and just resolution in court) or you oppose these things.” “Don’t try to confuse me with YOUR facts.” “That’s what you think, I know better.” Finally, “Get out of the way, we are in charge and we will protect and spread wolves; we will stop all American smelting of lead; we will make ammunition prohibitively expensive and we will confiscate all guns; and we will do whatever we must to prosecute and punish that policeman no matter what facts emerge in the investigation or in the judicial system.”

The American Constitutional Republic I once knew is devolving into a Darwinian ecosystem ruled by “The Laws of Nature” and described by Thomas Hobbes long ago as a society where life is “nasty, brutish and short.” The rule of law and the supremacy of human life and human values are being replaced by The Law of Survival of the Strongest.

Jim Beers
21 August 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

When Bears Get Accustomed to Eating Donuts

BearEatingDonutsKeyboard

Maine’s Kennebec Journal Editor Corrects False Accusation About HSUS

In what can only be described as unprecedented, the editor of the Kennebec Journal corrects a statement made by a person in a Letter to the Editor promoting a “yes” vote on Question One of Maine’s upcoming November referendum vote. In that letter, the writer accuses a previous letter writer(Carroll Ware) of “made up stuff out of whole cloth” when Ware said that Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), wanted to end all hunting.

The editor adds a correction after the Letter to the Editor that reads: “Editor’s note: In 1991, when he was CEO of the Fund for Animals, a radical anti-hunting organization, Pacelle was quoted by The Associated Press as saying, “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.””

The other information contained in this letter about the results of bear baiting is “made up stuff out of whole cloth.”

Maine IFW Enhances Website With Information Concerning Bear Referendum

Press Release from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine — Voters who want to learn more about Maine’s black bears and Question 1 on the November ballot should visit the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife web page, which features a new section designed to inform citizens about the upcoming bear referendum and why the department is opposed to Question 1. You can visit the website at www.mefishwildlife.com.

“No one care’s more about Maine’s black bears than Maine’s bear biologists—they have dedicated their careers to protecting Maine’s bear population,” said IFW Wildlife Division Director Judy Camuso. “They are hired by the state to protect and care for Maine’s bear population, and we want to let voters know what we have learned from over 40 years of research and why we are opposed to the referendum.”

The site includes research authored by Maine’s bear biologists, videos focused on Maine’s black bear management and bear biology, infographics, biographic summaries, pictures of field research, a presentation on Maine’s bear management program and other information regarding the upcoming referendum.

The site is full of information about Maine’s black bears. For instance, just over 50 years ago, black bears were relegated to no more than a nuisance animal, with the state paying a bounty to those who killed black bears. Now bears are a valued game animal to hunters and non-hunters alike.

“We want to provide Maine’s voters with facts about Maine black bears so they have the information they need before they cast their vote,” said Camuso. “Maine’s biologists are some of the most experienced and respected in North America. Their research has been utilized in bear management programs throughout the continent.”

Web users should visit the site often, as it will be updated with new videos and infographics about Maine’s black bears on a weekly basis. The videos feature Maine wildlife biologists and game wardens and focus on information learned from Maine’s long-running research program, why the department opposes the referendum and why these hunting methods are important to control the bear population.

“We felt it was important that voters understand the ramifications of this referendum,” said Camuso. “Maine’s biologists and game wardens are opposed to this referendum, and this website clearly shows why we are opposed and why this referendum is bad for Maine.”

Video: Results of Wolves Sport-Killing Sheep

Maine Bear Hunting Poll Question

The Bangor Daily News has an article about the debate over the upcoming referendum to effectively end bear hunting in Maine. The article discusses science versus ethics. In addition there is a poll question that mimics the one that will appear on the ballot in November: “Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?”