November 21, 2017

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share

Abortion Should Be the Recommended Instrument to Control Animal Populations

Insane debate rages in Maine over a proposed constitutional amendment wrongly presented as a guaranteed right to hunt, fish and trap.

Last week I was reading an article that contained some comments from those opposed to the amendment and those in favor of such. In one comment from a member of the opposition a woman stated, “This proposal’s vague terms open the door to inhumane, unethical trapping and hunting practices.” 

We are subjected to the nonsensical drivel of the animal rights perverts but consider the realities here and then take a step back and ask yourself just exactly who is inhumane, unethical and insane.

It is always the Left who promote animal rights, while presenting animals as sentient beings of and above the existence of man, endowed with all the same rights, and more, as man. Any form of killing of an animal to these perverse followers of Satanic animal worship is considered “inhumane.” Ever stopped for a minute to understand what the word “inhumane” is derived from? I didn’t think so.

And so, in this one tiny discussion, it is believed by an obvious Leftist that a constitutional amendment suggesting that hunting, fishing and trapping be utilized as a means of controlling the population of certain game animals, will lead to “inhumane, unethical” practices.

Forget that this statement makes no sense at all, and just consider the positions always taken by the Left that make absolutely no sense, contradict their own stated positions and expose themselves as the ignorant frauds that they are.

The Left opposes the killing on ANY animal because doing so is “inhumane” and “unethical.” (understand that many of the same eat dead animals) However, they will give their own lives to defend what they call the right to mutilate and murder an unborn baby. To these mixed up individuals, which number in the millions, it is somehow humane and ethical to pop the head of an unborn baby, tear it to pieces and toss it in a garbage can, and yet hunting, fishing and trapping is inhumane.

Geez! At least most hunters eat what they kill. Do Leftists eat mutilated babies?

Perhaps then, if this country insists on living as mixed up, immoral murderers of babies while protecting animals, wildlife managers should begin a system of capturing and aborting the unwanted fetuses of animals in order to, not only control the population of certain species of animals but to also protect the rights of the female game animals who, according to many on the Left, should enjoy the same “rights” as us immoral and murdering, unethical and inhumane, Americans.

Nothing abnormal here. Move along.

Share

When Wolves Become Terrorists

*Editor’s Note* – Wolf advocates say that people need to learn to “co-exist” with wolves, but is there ever a point in which a line is drawn in their minds where the wolves are taking more than their share of co-existence than the people? It seems that regardless of the results of any wolf encounter, people are always blamed and never can do enough for the wolves to satisfy the totalitarian wolf protectors.

We now see, as indicated below, a family being held hostage inside their own home and limitations placed on the freedoms of the children for the sake of “co-existing with wolves.” This is wrong.

Of course idiots will say that the ranchers are living in the wolves’ habitat and by doing so they must put up with the canine predators. I wonder if these non thinkers feel the same way when violent criminals invade their neighborhoods, terrorizing, killing and causing them to lock themselves in their homes. Do they just put up with it because they are co-existing with violent criminals?

At the very basic level, no animal should be allowed to hold any person(s) in fear of the lives. To think otherwise is extreme and perverse.

Chelsea Matthews said the family is now taking extra precautions, both with their dogs and young children. “We lock all the dogs up at night and the kids have to stay where I can see them (when playing outside),” she said. “It’s not worth the risk of me sending them out of sight knowing that there are wolves around.” Matthews said it is frustrating to not be able to let her children explore and play outside without constant worry. “Our kids should get to experience all the joys of being country kids.”

Source: Wolf attack alarms ranchers | Natural Resource Report

Share

Insanity and Diversions

Insanity is running rampant in our world, filling the airwaves and media platforms with tons of diversions, i.e. meaningless, nonsense. Here’s some examples:

1. Logging leads to long-term release of carbon from soils in Northeastern hardwood forests

This report is loaded with “maybes” and “mights,” all classical examples of “creating new knowledge” and “shifting paradigms.” Utter useless nonsense.

2. New Jersey bear hunt fueled by emotion over mauling death

Blow-back from the bear mauling death of a Rutgers University Student, delusional people, more interested in romantic notions of bears, blame everyone and everything for why bears attack people. In this case, let’s blame it on hunting and sound proven wildlife management. Remember, these clowns have been brainwashed into believing that “we must change the way in which we discuss wildlife management.”

3. California bans coyote hunts that offer prizes

From the article linked to above, we read: “Awarding prizes for wildlife killing contests is both unethical and inconsistent with our modern understand[ing] of natural systems.” By some totalitarian socialist it is perceived as unethical and because of intense training since birth, believe it is their appointed duty to force their ethics down the throats of other people. However, note the part of the comment that says that coyote derbies WITH PRIZES, is, “inconsistent with our modern understanding of natural systems.” (emphasis added)

This is another classic example of the ongoing effort to “create new understanding,” and “create new knowledge,” and “changing the way we discuss wildlife management.” Modern understanding is absolute post-normal, new-science, scientism at its finest. Also, utter nonsense.

4. More lynx being trapped in Maine, but reasons in dispute

Blinded by hatred of American heritage, all things normal and humans in general, in Maine, totalitarian, animal rights booger men say that because Maine was issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for trapping by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more Canada lynx are being caught in traps. The idiocy here is that the only thing, as it pertains to trapping, that has changed is that Maine designated 22,000 acres of public lands to protect the Canada lynx. None of the already strict trapping guidelines have changed from the Consent Decree that was signed and in affect until such time as an ITP could be obtained.

So, what has changed that might be causing a few more Canada lynx to be “incidentally” caught and released unharmed? How about the fact that when lynx were declared a “threatened” species in Maine, the lie was there were fewer than 500 of the animals. Today, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife guesstimate there are closer to 1,000 – 1,500. One with a brain might conclude that having 2 to 3 times the number of Canada lynx might play a role in a few more lynx being “incidentally” trapped and released unharmed. But let’s not let sensibility stand in the way of human hatred and animal perversion.

Share

Just Say No to Welfare Bears

BearDreamingofDonutsConfucius once said, “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” And yet again George Bernard Shaw once said, “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” What’s even worse is being ignorant and having the confidence to show it. Mark Twain said that you only need two things in life to be a success; “ignorance and confidence.” That is why for many who will read anything that I write will claim I am the one who is ignorant and their truth is the truth that will lead them to successes beyond their wildest dreams….with confidence. Wildest, yes, but never anything that they dreamed of.

I don’t believe it takes a political expert, whatever the hell that is, to come to the conclusion that the majority of people who would sell their souls to Satan for animal welfare, are members of the same group that like to call themselves liberal and progressive. And thus would support and defend the welfare state; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Let’s gander for a moment into animal welfare as it may pertain to black bears. In reality, it matters not the species of plant or animal. Environmentalists preach the “natural” and “balanced” way of doing things. These leftist, animal welfare, non thinkers harp to anyone who will listen that if man would just butt out of the equation of ecosystem (whatever that is) health and well-being, all would be Kumbaya.

Even after those who fabricated the theory of “natural balance” have since withdrew that claim, based of course on “best available science” (snickering here), the animal welfare activist and promoter of “let nature take its course and everything will be alright,” will cling confidently to their old-found supposition in order to show their own ignorance, confidently, but only to those intelligent enough to know the difference. For the majority, it has no meaning and that’s why it continues.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and their grand followers of confident ignoramuses, are proudly showing the world that they want the citizens of Maine, and other states, to stop treating bears inhumanely – hunters shoot them and eat them. GASP! The same flock of parrots preach ethics. I’m reminded of the words of Jesus (that would be the real, one and only, Son of God, the Creator of all things) when He said to the mass of confident, ignoramuses, eager to throw stones at and kill a woman because she was a prostitute, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”(John 8:7) My thoughts here are that Jesus didn’t think the stone-throwing sinners were exercising good ethics.

Obviously, and it is a shame I have to explain this, I have my doubts that anyone mixed up with HSUS, is much interested in “stoning” a bear hunter, but then again……

Somewhere lost in this progressive paradigm of animal protection to extremes, people have determined to make humans second class citizens. Animals come first. And yet, out of one corner of their mouths they confidently believe themselves to be compassionate humans toward other humans by offering somebody’s money (tax dollars), not their own, to go to support humans who say they can’t take care of themselves. Can’t take care of themselves? Later.

A reader sent me the following statement found on the Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting Facebook page. By the way there is nothing to do with Mainers in this group of Totalitarians as the entire group is funded by out-of-state interests and the HSUS.

The update pertains to a gathering of confident, ignorant, hypocrites to bring attention to the onset of Maine’s bear hunting season. In the update it says, “For 30 days, bears are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.” There are confident outcries among the masses. I’m sure the gatherers will be chanting, “No more welfare for bears!”

Perhaps I should take that statement and just change three words. I’ll delete “30 days” and replace it with “years” and change “bears” to “people.” The statement would read, “For years, people are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.”

On the one hand, God created man and gave him the brains and ability to take care of himself, i.e. work, grow and find food, shelter, etc. On the other hand, God created the beasts of field in order that man could have dominion over those beast, to care for and perpetuate growth for people to eat and use all the resources the animals can offer.

The confident cloud dwellers of the HSUS and other environmentalist movement groups demand that animals should be left alone, in their “natural” state (although their own ignorance don’t know what that means). Doing so will bring justice to the animal kingdom.

However, a man, a human, should have more ability to take care of himself than a damned bear and yet HSUS and others believe bears should be left to their own devices, without man’s interference (of course only when that interference involves hunting, fishing and trapping). Where is the outcry from those confident protestors toward those who spend years training others to “visit these sites for free food (health care, education, money and shelter), seemingly with no strings attached.”? What the hell is “natural” about that?

Isn’t there something seriously wrong with this?

Share

Open Your Soul – Give Animals What They Want

Share

Service Reopens Comment Period on Wolf Proposal

February 7, 2014
Contacts:

Gavin Shire, 703-346-9123, gavin_shire@fws.gov

Independent scientific peer review report available for public review

Following receipt of an independent scientific peer review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is reopening the comment period on its proposal to list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and remove the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List. The Service is making that report available for public review, and beginning Monday, February 10, interested stakeholders will have an additional 45 days to provide information that may be helpful to the Service in making a final determination on the proposal.

The independent scientific peer review was hosted and managed by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a highly respected interdisciplinary research center at the University of California – Santa Barbara. At the Service’s request, NCEAS sponsored and conducted a peer review of the science underlying the Service’s proposal.

“Peer review is an important step in our efforts to assure that the final decision on our proposal to delist the wolf is based on the best available scientific and technical information,” said Service Director Dan Ashe. “We thank the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis for conducting a transparent, objective and well-documented process. We are incorporating the peer review report into the public record for the proposed rulemaking, and accordingly, reopening the public comment period to provide the public with the opportunity for input.”

The peer review report is available online, along with instructions on how to provide comment and comprehensive links relating to the proposal, at www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery.

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best available information. Comments and materials we receive, as well as some of the supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, are available for public inspection at www.regulations.gov under the docket number FWS–HQ–ES–2013–0073.

The Service will post all comments on www.regulations.gov. This generally means the agency will post any personal information provided through the process. The Service is not able to accept email or faxes. Comments must be received by midnight on March 27.

The Federal Register publication of this notice will be available online Feb. 10 at www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm by clicking on the 2014 Proposed Rules under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.

The Service expects to make final determination on the proposal by the end of 2014.

Share

Relationships With Fish and Game Departments at All-Time Low

Yesterday in the Missoulian, republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill stated, “One of the things I’ve heard everywhere that I go is that the relationship today between Fish, Wildlife and Parks and landowners and sportsmen is at an all-time low.”

Should this come as a surprise to anyone? Do people think that this is something that has happened overnight? No and no! And this seemingly newly discovered phenomenon isn’t relegated to Montana. It’s an epidemic that reaches every state in this Union. Sportsmen and landowners have almost as bad an opinion of their fish and game departments as Americans do of their Congress or the presidency. And why is that?

There once was a day when fish and game departments were constructed with the idea to devise plans that would perpetuate game species so that everyone had a chance to stock up on food and/or sell animal furs to supplement or provide income. These fish and game departments originally were a direct extension of the outdoor sportsmen.

Not anymore! Fish and game departments have become giant government agencies with too many powers and a focus that caters to environmentalism and animal rights and animal protection. Along with this demented change in direction and overreaching power grab, landowners are not only losing rights to use their land as is necessary but in some cases they lose their land altogether. And with this do we really need to doubt what Hill says, that this relationship between sportsmen/landowners and fish and game is at an all-time low?

When fish and game departments functioned as a supporting entity of the sportsmen, there was also a certain degree of ownership and pride in that ownership. Are any readers old enough to remember the day when you could actually talk with a representative from a fish and game department and be treated as an equal, one with respect and an understanding of who paid whose salary? That pride of ownership kept sportsmen involved in the process. They knew their voice would be heard and when it wasn’t, fish and game personnel were out of a job.

Today, fish and game departments pretend they are interested in the sportsmen. Some even masquerade as humans who understand their role and function as that of serving the public. But don’t be fooled. They are a government organization. Governments are not any friend of the people and they certainly are not friends of sportsmen or landowners. This is because sportsmen and landowners are what stand in their way to fulfill their agendas of protecting wildlife, ridding human presence from the forests and fields, relegating us all to concrete jungles and levying control over us all. Get rid of us and they get what they want, or at least think they do.

But the problem that perpetuates this insanity is that government attempts to fix government with more government. It’s what keeps them collecting a salary. Talk is cheap. Words in this case are nothing more than campaign rhetoric, meaningless drivel to placate the masses in order to steal your vote.

Until states regain control over their environmentalism-strangled fish and game departments and change the direction and goals back to game management combined with an understanding and respect for landowners, nothing will change. Actually look for it to get worse.

The people are lazy, brainwashed robots who want government to do their bidding. Why do you think we are where we are now? Government is not the answer to government.

Tom Remington

Share