August 19, 2017

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

Parasites “A Major Threat to Moose” But Leads “Occasionally to Death.” HUH?

Perhaps Cornell University is at it again. The last time I recall the antics of Cornell University, was when they, in their attempt to do something about the overrunning deer population on campus, decided to conduct some “tubal ligations” on some of the female population of deer.

When a university, or any other organization, is wallowing in liberal idiocy, stupid things happen to stupid people. What the brilliant wildlife department at the university failed to understand, in their blindness, was that tubal ligations on female deer only caused those female deer to go into estrus and remain in estrus until they had successfully mated. Now, without the ability to successfully mate…The result? Every buck within a hundred miles descended on Cornell looking for action.

And now, the $34,000.00 a year tuition at Cornell, has students who are conducting tests, and what they call research, to see what are killing the Adirondack moose. They say moose eating snails is how they contract “brain worm,” which ends up killing the moose. However, in one paragraph, the university writes: “…surveys in 2016 on 11 live moose and 22 necropsies and concluded parasites are a major threat to the moose population.” (Emboldening added by editor)

This if followed almost immediately by this: “Foraging moose then ingest infected snails, culminating in a diseased brain and spinal cord, and occasionally death.”(emboldening added by editor)

I may be wrong, but from my perspective, if I was going to state that parasites, from eating snails, are a major threat to the moose population, then it must be that death, and/or failure to reproduce, is at a level high enough the recruitment of new moose calves is lower than total mortality of the adult moose population.

If that is true, then how can the results of foraging moose, eating snails, lead to “occasional death?”

Maybe they should try some tubal ligations.

Understand that by reading Cornell’s own words, they are clueless as to whether moose are eating snails and if so, if it is killing the moose. “Our results show that moose foraging in areas with high soil moisture may likely encounter higher densities of gastropods – snails and slugs – which likely increases the risk of parasitic threats from deer brain worm if the snails are eaten.” (Emboldening added by editor)

I suppose it is just as LIKELY that moose MIGHT eat a truck full of cannabis a LIKELY die!

Here’s one more observation. The student researchers (give em a break, right? So they can graduate and fill our wildlife manager departments with more progressive, brainwashed, environmentalist, idiots.) said they are looking into wet and “water areas” where they think, perhaps they will find these parasitic-laden snails. One area of interest to them is described this way: “Since moose make use of water areas and eat in wet, dense pine forests, they’re susceptible to a large presence of gastropods …”

I grew up in Maine and lived the majority of my adult life here. Maine is the Pine Tree State. Pine forests are everywhere and for some strange reason, the people of Maine decided to call Maine the Pine Tree State. Maine also has moose…more than any other state in the lower contiguous states. I’m going to go out and search for moose eating in “wet, dense pine forests.” And all this time, I thought pine trees, like the hundreds of thousands I have on my small acreage, thrived in dry, sandy places.

I just can’t believe my own eyes!

Maybe I should try some tubal ligations.

Share

Making It Up As You Go Along

I was sent a link to Richard Fernandez’s latest article called, “Making it up as You Go Along.” The link was accompanied by a note that remarked that in reading the article he was reminded of how wildlife management and wildlife biologists operate in this post modern area of scientism, i.e. making it up as they go along.

Share

Nature Balances Itself Unless I Say It Doesn’t (Fits My Narrative)

Stupid people want to believe what they want to believe because….well, they are stupid. One of the giant echo-chambers, ad nauseam, is that “nature balances itself.” Short of debating what nature and balance is, honestly educated people understand that balance in nature is not the idealistic Disney movie they have been taught…but few are capable.

Included in the echo-chambers of filthy perversion we also hear that wolves are an “apex” predator. There is only one apex predator and we walk upright on two legs…period. We are told that wolves are important and a necessary part of our ecosystems because they “balance out our ecosystems.” What fantasy! What nonsense! What hypocrisy!

However, somebody always has a “study” to prove their romantic, biological, perverse and extremely stupid assumptions about the role of wolves in our fields and forests.

But what nonsense, fantasy and hypocrisy. Consider the latest tripe about another new “study” that concludes that wolves need more room to do what wolves do. No, you can’t make this crap sandwich up. Somebody stupid has to dream it up and so they have. “Wirsing co-authored a new study in the journal Nature Communications. He said current land management policies don’t offer apex predators enough space, but that doesn’t mean he wants to see wolves roaming rampant across North America. ??

“We need to allow predators to occupy more landscapes than just remote, protected areas,” Wirsing said. “On the other hand, we also need to heavily manage them, recognizing that they do conflict with people.””

Unless you’re incapable of basic understanding, try to understand what this person is saying. First he calls the wolf an apex predator. In the context of what is written, there must be several “apex predators” in his mind. How can that be? He says wolves don’t have enough space, and that they need to be “allowed to roam” and be “heavily managed.”

What happened to balance of nature and the wolf that changes the paths of rivers and streams? Why does anything, according to the environmentally insane, need to be managed or heavily managed, if nature balances itself out? And if the wolf is so damned wonderful and powerful, and does all these clowns say it does, and is a necessary and important part of our ecosystems, why can’t the wolf create its own space?

If the wolf is an apex predator, that means the wolf is not prey to any other animal…I guess including man. I ask again, if this is at all true, why doesn’t the wolf create its own space?

Morons want their cake and eat it too. They want wolves to retain a status in excess of the existence of man. And yes, many prefer the lives of wolves over the lives of man. They mouth that “nature” balances itself and that when it is not in balance it is because of the evils of man. Once they have fought for that false idol, then they can manage everything else as it fits their narratives and fulfills their agendas – but somehow it’s not management and manipulation. This appears to be the ultimate in insanity, in which these gODS of the ecosystems kill anything, man, beast of plant, to save whatever the animal worship of the day might be.

A simple honest read-search of history, reveals to us that wolves did once exist in many places in North America. That was when essentially there were few people around. The environmentalists readily admit that man did a number on wolves as they settled the landscapes from East to West. It happened. It was going to happen. It could not be stopped. That is how things are. It sucks to hate man so much that you would prefer the existence of any animal over theirs. Now, with idiots in charge, although they won’t necessarily come right out and say it, we have a choice – either man goes or the wolves go.

Why do you think they are so persistent with forcing wolves into our backyards and onto our ranches and farms? Wolves DO NOT belong in man-settled landscapes.

Share

Red Wolf Criminal Enterprise Appears to Remain Unchanged

Man-government is a nonsustaining, useless and corrupt entity that destroys whatever it lays its hands to. Government epitomizes insanity – rinse and repeat. Our insanity comes from thinking we can change it.

But, perhaps it’s partly the blame of a dysfunctional Trump Administration that seems to screw up whatever it lays its hands to, along with the fact that within its dysfunction, Trump’s appointment of Ryan Zinke as head of the Interior Department, can’t seem to get off his lazy backside and announce his pick to head up the Fish and Wildlife Service. After all, it’s been over 4 months and counting. Is it at all possible a real leader at the USFWS wouldn’t even be making such ridiculous proposals at an absurd time like this? Don’t hold your breath.

One thing has become clear to those willing to take off their fake blinders and examine truth, is that Trump cannot and will not keep any of his campaign promises (lies) – but he is no different in that regard than any crooked politician who came before him – that the ALL are crooked. It is a requirement of the position. It has not yet become obvious to his supporters that his works to this point in time are all blather. He talks a big talk and achieves nothing. People don’t even read his Executive Orders and if they do, they can’t understand them. If he’s so mighty, what has changed? I’m thinking nothing has changed and nothing will change, although there was some hope, which is now rapidly waning, soon to be replaced by business as usual and how do we get through 4 or 8 years of thugs and gangsters? Rinse and repeat.

Evidently it is business as usual at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) where babysitters are sucking on their pacifiers and carrying out the corrupt work that preceded them. Talk the talk but then blow it off. An example of such is what to do about the fake Red Wolves?

The USFWS is proposing making some changes to the “10j” rule of the Endangered Species Act in order to do something to change the management strategy of trying to grow a fake red wolf and perpetuate it.

The proposal – or more accurately a request for comments in order to draw up a draft proposal – can be found at this link. Below I have included the portion of the request that contains the USFWS’s options and what they are leaning toward implementing.

In their background information, of course it is fraught with lies. As an example it reads that the USFWS made sure that any “red wolves” that drifted off government land was removed. We know that never happened and as a matter of fact there’s pretty good evidence the criminals at the USFWS knowingly released and/or relocated “red wolves” on private land, which was an illegal act. However, anyone should understand by now that the U.S. Government places themselves above the laws we citizen slaves are expected to follow.

In the proposal it appears the USFWS wants to grow more fake mongrel “red wolves” in “zoos and private” wolf sanctuaries to keep beefing up the population and creating “genetic diversity” among existing fake red wolves. The liars at the USFWS say their management plans will protect further “hybridization” of red wolves and coyotes. They can never do this with the plans they are formulating, and it doesn’t much matter because what they are perpetuating is nothing but semi wild mongrel dogs. Is it that government is that stupid or do they think all of us are stupid enough to think we will never know the difference? I put my money on the latter.

But what’s difficult to understand, but not from a criminal’s mindset, is how the USFWS can, with a straight face, even be considering any proposal for a change of management of red wolves when the U.S. Attorney General’s Office has documentation that proves that the USFWS knew the “red wolves” they were growing and fostering weren’t even red wolves at all? Last I knew, the Attorney General’s office was demanding some answers. (I can’t help but laugh.) This sounds like a corrupt attempt at enhancing the corrupt red wolf program as much as possible before any decisions are made, or that the USFWS, like all government agencies, don’t give a rats ass about laws, rule of law or what, if anything, the U.S. Attorney General’s office will or won’t do. It’s one big fraternity that’s part of the giant rigged system. It will NEVER change.

In addition to all of this, new studies and science – difficult to know if any of it is real – suggest that there never existed any such “subspecies” of red wolf in the first place.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

For more information on the evidence to suggest the USFWS knew their red wolves were fake and the non existence of red wolves, use this link and this link. For lots of links to information about the history of red wolves in North Carolina, follow this link.

Proposed Action and Possible Alternatives

In 2013, acknowledging growing concerns from private landowners regarding management of the NEP, the Service and North Carolina Resources Commission entered into a broad canid management agreement, recognizing steps were needed to improve management of the population. Subsequently, the Service contracted an independent evaluation of the NEP project in 2014 and of the entire red wolf recovery program in 2015. From these evaluations, it became clear that the current direction and management of the NEP project is unacceptable to the Service and all stakeholders.

As a result of the findings from the evaluations, the Service is considering a potential revision of the 1995 NEP final rule. Risks of continued hybridization, human-related mortality, continued loss of habitat due to sea level rise, and continued population decline are high and have led to poor prospects for the NEP. Further, the most recent PVA indicates that the viability of the captive population is below and declining from the original recovery plan diversity threshold of 90 percent and could be enhanced by breeding captive wolves with wolves from the NEP project area. Therefore, the Service is considering whether the NEP should be managed with the captive population as one meta-population, whereby individuals could be moved not only from captivity into the wild but also from the wild into captivity. Incorporating the NEP into a meta-population with the captive population will increase the size of the population and introduce the natural selection occurring in the NEP back into the captive population. Therefore, the Service is proposing to change the goal of the current NEP project from solely that of establishing a self- sustaining wild population to a goal of also supporting viability of the captive wolves of the red wolf breeding program (proposed action). Maintaining a wild population fully integrated with the captive wolves also will: (1) Allow for animals removed from the wild to support the necessary expansion of current and future wild reintroduced populations and to improve the genetic health of the captive-breeding program; (2) preserve red wolf natural instincts and behavior in the captive population gene pool; and (3) provide a population for continued research on wild behavior and management.

The proposed revision would recognize that the size, scope, and management of the NEP will be focused on maintaining a wild population on Federal lands within Dare County, North Carolina and on protecting the species by increasing the number and genetic diversity of wolves in captivity. These revisions will allow removal of isolated packs of animals from non-Federal lands at the landowners’ request, incorporation of these animals into the wild/captive metapopulation, and better management of the remaining wild animals in accessible areas to minimize risks of hybridization. Management of wolves occupying Federal lands in Dare County will include population monitoring, animal husbandry, and control of coyotes and hybrids.

The proposed revision would authorize the movement of animals between the captive and wild populations in order to increase the number of wolves in the captive-breeding program and maintain genetic diversity for both captive and wild wolves. This means the captive wolves and the NEP will be managed as one single meta-population.

The draft environmental review under NEPA will consider consequences of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. We have identified several management alternatives for the NEP:

(1) Maintain the NEP project in its current state. In other words, we would make no revisions to the current 10(j) rule.

(2) Publish a rule eliminating the NEP project. Under this alternative, the red wolves found in the wild would retain their status as a federally listed “endangered” species under the Act.

(3) Revise the existing NEP. We may consider revisions to the current 10(j) rule that vary from the proposed action.

Share

Are We Good Stewards of Our Environment?

During a radio interview with my friends at Shake, Rattle and Troll, I was asked a few questions, some of which I don’t think I answered succinctly or expressed myself to the specifics of what was on my mind at the time of the interview. It is one of the difficulties one might face when doing radio interviews, live and without foreknowledge of what questions would be asked. Any problems that might have happened were not the fault of anyone at Shake, Rattle and Troll.

One specific question I was asked, I would like to clear up any misconceptions and better explain my answer. I was asked if I thought that in this country man has been a good steward of our environment. I answered yes, which might have caught some off guard. Not to make excuses but my mind was focused on wolves…after all, my book about wolves was what I was asked to talk about and answer questions.

I did answer the question as it might pertain to whether or not man has been a good steward concerning our attempts to sustain populations of wildlife. Over all, I think we have. There are exceptions, as always, and what is never honestly considered in such discussions is how much natural occurrences contribute to loss of wildlife. The finger is always and quickly pointed to the evils of man.

We are only kidding ourselves to think it’s an easy task to find some kind of equilibrium of happiness and satisfaction between consumptive users of our natural resources and the environmentalists who want nothing touched.

I stated that I believe people want clean water and clean air but that I didn’t think they knew how to achieve that. I didn’t have time to further explain. It’s easy to talk about having clean water and clean air, but what are those? Who gets to define clean air and clean water and by what standards do they go by. Leaving it up to governments is a huge mistake, however, too many trust their government. Yikes!

We may all be convinced that we have clean water, land and air, but in many cases we have been lied to. We talk about “clean” drinking water only to find out it may be clean by someone’s standards while the water is laced with harmful chemicals. But, we don’t talk about that. We see pretty parks and pretty flowers and plants and to our uneducated eye, it must all be clean. We briefly look to the sky and if we see haze, we are conditioned to believe it is pollution and yet if we see chemical trails from aerosol spraying, we are told it is condensation even though the trail lingers for the duration of the day and into the night.

We want clean air and clean water but we are not getting it. We are told of the strides we have made to “scrub” our smoke stacks and clean up exhaust emissions, while at the same time corporate America is given a free pass and Americans foot the bill.

I could go on and on. If I were to answer the question posed in a more general fashion, then I would have to say that man has not been good stewards of our environment because those who take charge of that mission are lying, stealing, cheating thieves. If a problem surfaces it’s blamed on “man,” that is the common man, i.e. you and I. And we are forced to pay because we are citizen slaves to a corporate constitution that says we will pay all the debt….period.

A second question I was asked was about whether I thought wolf (re)introduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains, the Desert Southwest and the Southeast were good things. I answered no and further stated that it was a criminal enterprise. If we had had the entire day on the radio we could have discussed this issue and would still have only scratched the surface. That’s why you should by my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?”

Beyond the criminal enterprise, what makes the (re)introduction bad can be assessed in two simple observations. 1.) The opportunity for citizens to hunt for game and food has been seriously reduced in many places, due to wolves tearing hell out of the elk, deer and moose herds. This should be unacceptable. 2.) The unnecessary loss of livestock (private property) and a person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Yehwah’s given right not man’s). It is a testimony to the direction this country has gone that shows that any animal should be given priority over the well-being of man.

Another point I wished I had the time to discuss was the section in my book all about how the process of devising the Environmental Impact Statement was rooted in fraud and ignorance. Every item listed for consideration in the drafting of the EIS that was of concern to the people and property was blatantly disregarded. As a matter of fact, officials who wrote the EIS came right out and said it was only considering those things that positively benefited the wolf or placed the wolf in a positive light. In other words, man did not matter.

One blatant example of this can be seen when it was asked of the Government’s wolf officials, if they intended to vaccinate the wolf to prevent the spread of disease (to humans), etc. the answer went directly to their point: They would do everything necessary to protect the wolf from any harm or illness.

Since the drafting of the EIS, every item disregarded because the Government said it was not worthy of consideration, are the only issues that remain unsolved and pose the biggest challenges to the public’s health and safety and the protection of game herds.

The last thing I wanted to better explain had to do with my comments about the perverse nature Americans have been manipulated into when it comes to animals. It was agreed upon by those conducting the interview, and myself, that it is a serious problem in this country when people place any animal, wild or domestic, on a plain of existence equal to or greater than man. I tried to explain that doing such was in contradiction to the Scriptures and our Creators intention for the role that animals would play in consideration of His creation of Man.

I went so far as to state that these actions were an abomination to the Creator. And it is. It is because playing gOD and attempting to change His order of Existence is making a mockery of Yehwah and His work. That is an abomination. Abominations directed at Yehwah will never go unpunished.

If your basic belief system is not focused on the Scriptures and the Creation of the Almighty, I would not expect you to agree with or even understand this position.

But now you better understand mine.

Share

Demand Censorship to Promote Animal Idealism

The linked-to article below is but one more example of how the progressives on the left are such ignorant hypocrites and the totalitarians they really are. The author takes issue with an article published in the Portland Press Herald that addressed the fact (yes it is a fact, studied by and published by read search scientists) that the wild canines living in Maine are a breed mixture of coyote, wolf and domestic dog. This ad mixture has resulted in a larger canine species carrying with in some wolf traits as well as those of the domestic dogs they may have bred with. This is nothing more than a biological fact of dog breeding.

All this evidently stirs up the demands by leftists to censor the journalist who wrote the story because the article did not 100% support the nonsense the coyote adorers want to force on to the public. Only their “truth” matters.

As an example of leftist demonization of anyone with a contrary thought, the author takes the high road and claims the only one in existence that holds the keys to enlightenment. Odd that the same author chose to take quotes from old retired biologists, who were trained in the ridiculous theories about wild canines, i.e. at a time when theories swarmed about trophic cascades and the “balance of nature,” as well as the myth of litter size doubling when coyotes are killed. All of these theories have since that time been scientifically proven as false, at least to some degree, and yet it is still convenient to cherry pick what fits a narrative.

Another tactic is the use of words to present members of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and anyone else who might support control of predators, as barbaric people and ignorant of the science of predator prey relationships and the behavior of wild canines. I might suggest that anyone who would rely on old, rejected science and ancient quotes about how coyotes in Maine are no threat to the deer herd, when coyotes numbered less than 5,000 (today closer to 20,000) are the ones who are ignorant of facts.

The truth in all of this is we have a group(s) that perceives any animal at or above the same plane of existence as man and they loathe any kind of animal killing. These are the same people who generally promote the murder of over one million unborn babies a year and yet go off the deep end when reasonable people try to find a respectable balance within the animal resources we have that are a benefit to all, not just those who worship animals.

I would suggest that if this author is going to attempt to scientifically prove that controlling and managing wildlife is wrong and barbaric….oh, wait. There is no science to prove that. More than likely these people are still doing daily readings from Farley Mowat.

“Portland Press Herald readers and subscribers want and expect high quality journalism on wildlife, wildlife policy matters, and the role wild animals play in healthy, bio-diverse ecosystems.

It is past time to move these important subjects out of the realm of the sports department to give them the serious attention and treatment they deserve.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wolves Don’t Change Rivers

“Yes, you heard that right. The wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 have not restored the landscape. They have not brought back the aspens and willows. They have not brought back the beavers or the songbirds. And no, the rivers have not changed, either.

Then why does “How Wolves Change Rivers” (HWCR) claim otherwise? Because the creators of the four-minute long viral video (now approaching 20 million hits just via YouTube) “are adherents to romance biology,” according to former USFWS biologist Jim Beers. Plus, the whole notion of Yellowstone as wilderness is “inherently racist,” argues wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Kay. I spoke with both Jim Beers and Dr. Kay in preparing this article. Dr. Kay was especially put out by the video’s claims.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

“Genetic Evidence” Suggests Nothing – Man Does All the Suggesting and it’s Always Biased

Maine media sources seem to have some kind of attraction right now with the hybrid wild canine inhabiting the Maine woods. They like to call it a hybrid, I suppose because in their minds, lacking any real scientific knowledge of anything, a wild canine sounds more authentic or maybe even worthy of man’s affections and protections. Would the event be worthy if it involved a mutt or a mongrel?

Technically, it’s really nothing but a cross breed of dog – canine. It’s also a travesty that did not need to happen, could be mitigated, but won’t be due to perverse and ignorant notions about animals.

An article that ran in the Portland Press Herald recently rightfully stated that the “coyotes” that are found in Maine, are not native. This is true. They are an invasive dog that has a mixture of genetics; some breed of wolf, some breed of coyotes, some breeds of wild dogs and some breeds of domestic dogs. In short they are a nasty nuisance. However nobody wants to discuss the realities of the disease-carrying creature, a creature that is a threat to so many things, including a threat to the actual species of wolves and coyotes. Some claim they are protecting every living canine, wild, semi-wild or domestic by letting them grow out of control. They know not what they do.

But I’ve written about this so much that the ends of my fingers are worn to stubs.

What I intended to point out is what is written in this article. The author shares comments from a leading researcher of coyote DNA at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. The researcher explains how he thinks the “hybrid” canines got to Maine and much of the East Coast. He is quoted as saying, “Genetic evidence suggests it happened when the wolf population in the Great Lakes was at its lowest point when they were heavily persecuted. So basically some wolf female came into heat and couldn’t find a wolf so bred with the next best thing: a coyote.”

Genetic evidence doesn’t suggest anything. Genetic evidence tells us what the DNA composition is of the wild canines found in the East. How they arrived there is the suggestion of people like this researcher.

If you were to take the time and approach the above statement without bias, fed to us by ignorant media echo chambers, one can quickly see how this researcher approaches his research and forms his “evidence suggests” statements.

He says when the Great Lakes wolf population was at its lowest point (he doesn’t tell us when that was or how that lowest point compares to any other time period, but is very quick to simply state “when they were heavily persecuted”) a female wolf came into heat and the nearest solution happened to be a Western coyote.

Consider the obvious. If the population of wolves in the Great Lakes was at its lowest, unless there is proof that the reduction was something other than an equal reduction of both male and female wolves, the idea that there wasn’t enough male wolves to go around to breed all the females that came into heat, is dishonest at the very best.

As any honest person who knows a lick about dogs, wild or domestic, when any bitch comes into heat, any male dog within nose shot is hot on the track. No dog looks over his possible mating partner to determine whether it is wild or domestic and of what “species” or “breed” it might be. It doesn’t work that way. It really wouldn’t matter whether wolves in the Great Lakes were at the “lowest point” or highest point, if a female wolf comes into heat whoever gets there first gets first dibs.

It appears that the researcher is very quick to blame the cross-breeding on the “heavily persecuted” reduction of wolves. Are we correct to assume that the researcher sees that wolf persecution as being that of man?

What he fails to point out, and probably never will because it may be uncomfortable to speak of as it might pertain to his narrative of wild canine protection, is to ask or point out why the “WESTERN” coyotes had taken up residence or where simply passing through the Great Lakes, as seems to be the conclusion a reader might make.

Even in the writings of Teddy Roosevelt as he traveled the West, hunting and recording his observations of wildlife, he noted that the wild canines he encountered essentially remained separated geographically because, comparatively, there weren’t that many of them. It is believed that all dogs, wild and domestic of today, originated from one species of dog. The rest are more or less mutations and more cross breeding by man, i.e. hybridizing.

When any wild canine species’ or subspecies’ population gets too large – in other words when things get crowded and the habitat will not support more coyotes – they disperse. The dispersing coyotes are generally the males. During this dispersal, they seek territory and a mate. If during that dispersal, the male catches wind of any canine in heat, action begins. So, what happens when man practices to protect every wild canine that exists? Simple, there is more dispersal, driving coyotes and wolves further and further from their points of origin, forcing more and more cross breeding. And we end up with more and more mongrels.

If, as the researcher points out, “some wolf female came into heat” and “bred with a coyote,” the other side of the coin that perhaps the researcher does not want to examine, is that it happened because of too many coyotes. That fact is what caused the dispersal of the coyote to cross paths with the female wolf. It is also possible that a female coyote got bred with a male wolf. This most often occurs with crossing over of territories between wolves and coyotes.

If it is the intention of people to protect the wolf (that is the genetically distinct wolf) then the worse thing that we can do is to insist on protecting those wolves in human-settled landscapes where those wolves have just about a zero percent chance of ever maintaining its genetic makeup. As I pointed out, when any female canine comes into heat, any male canine would be happy to solve the problem. Genetics are ruined. It’s all senseless.

As this phenomenon continues, perpetuated by man’s insistence that wolves and coyotes of any breed or mixture be forced onto the landscapes also occupied by man, there will and is nothing left by a mongrel wild or semi-wild dog spreading disease, killing our pets and livestock and destroying the ecosystems that man has spent hundreds of million dollars to be what might benefit the most of us.

So, please! The next time you read that someone said, “genetics suggest,” just remember that genetics is a science that can only tell a scientist what is the DNA makeup of any living object. That makeup doesn’t “suggest” anything. Only a man can suggest things and in this case, one man is suggesting how a coyote in the West became a mixed breed of wild canine in Maine by breeding with a female wolf in the Great Lakes region that was part of a diminished wolf population due to “persecution.” He might “suggest” that event but could never prove that’s what happened.

Share

OPINION: MNRF takes the road of junk science to forward their agenda

In my younger years growing up in Sundridge, the moose season fell on every even year and lasted a week. You bought your moose license and shot a MOOSE. There were plenty of moose and trappers harvested wolves and hunters harvested spring bears and laws were based on science and time-proven management practices. During this time the powers that be were the Ontario Lands and Forests, later changed to Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Recently renamed Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.  Much has changed over the past two decades within what I once considered Ontario`s flagship ministry, for without our rich resources what does Ontario have to offer?

I have been deeply concerned about the direction this ministry has been travelling for some years now as laws are now being based on emotion and driven by special interest and protectionist lobby groups.<<<Read More>>>

Share