December 16, 2018

Why Hunting is Doomed for Failure

To many, all things are relative. In other words, they are only capable of seeing the moment for what it is and without any kind of historic compass in which to gauge the direction of the wind, knows not the direction things are headed. I suppose there is something to be said about the eternal optimist, but then again there is a fine line between having a good outlook and burying your head in the sand.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) emailed an announcement yesterday proclaiming that this coming Saturday, October 29, 2016, is opening day, for residents, of the annual deer hunting season. In that report, MDIFW tells readers that they think this year’s deer harvest might surpass last year’s – all because last winter wasn’t as severe as others – which sounds more like a sales pitch than anything scientific in which to hang your professional hat on. In addition, MDIFW appears to be proudly proclaiming that the average deer harvest for the past 8 years has been 20,900, as though that was something to be proud of. It’s dismal and we can expect to find more of the same, and worse, in coming years and I’ll show you exactly why.

Some hunters ask, what’s wrong with game management these days? This can easily be spelled out in a paragraph written by MDIFW in this press release. Perhaps some of you would like to print out a copy and carry it around with you. When, in the process of discussing why there aren’t any deer left to hunt and why in the past 20 years even spotting a white flag waving as it moves away is rare, you can pull out this statement by MDIFW and it answers all the questions as to why.

“The department manages white-tailed deer through regulated hunting, and controls the deer population in parts of the state to limit vehicle crashes, reduce instances of lyme disease and reduce property damage complaints. In other areas of the state, the department manages the deer population to increase opportunities for hunting and viewing.”

Several years ago a deliberate and planned event took place. It was an effort, by environmentalists, to take over fish and game departments nationwide. That is why “fish and game” in most state’s department titles have disappeared and have become, “fish and wildlife,” “natural resources,” etc. Game is not wanted in any titles as it signifies hunting, which in today’s totalitarian society of environmental fascists and animal rights perverts, is not wanted.

One of the leading culprits in this effort is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). What may have begun as an intention to pool resources for the good of state agencies, was soon co-opted by environmentalists who became successful in convincing Congress to give them a share of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson excise tax money charged to those who purchase certain outdoor equipment, including guns and ammunition. They used this money for programs to end hunting, trapping and fishing. It became the goal of the AFWA to turn all state fish and game departments into managers of giant outdoor pet stores. Departments, complimented by newly brainwashed recruits from our institutes of higher brainwashing, took these environmentalist-trained rookies, and made them mostly view hunting, trapping and fishing as something to be tolerated because it paid their wages and took care of their retirement pensions. Through all of this, for the most part, it was, and still is, the license buyer who foots the bill and invests in a new entity of “natural resource” management, i.e. as is indicated in the paragraph above, everything but hunting, trapping and fishing.

Along with this, the outdoor sportsman has lost any consideration of input into the process of game management. Some believe they still have it, because they are promoters of environmentalism, and become a part of the rigged system actually believing they are contributing to the process of natural resource management and that this will somehow protect hunting, trapping and fishing. They are simply, contributing to the destruction of hunting, trapping and fishing.

I have always advocated for a separation of powers with state departments, including separating game management and administration from conservation. The license buyers will fund game management and the rest of the environmentalist-controlled world can fund “conservation,” thus protecting their piping plovers and ruby-throated cruple-poops anyway they want. This, of course, will never happen. One reason is because of the complete takeover of departments by environmentalists and animal rights perverts. In short, my investment in the process seems to be going everywhere except into deer hunting.

I no longer hold out any hope that this is going to change. There will be many more rounds of lawsuits and ballot initiatives that will result in more a more power granted the environmentalists. With that dismal prospect looming in my future, maybe it’s time for the environmentalists and animal rights perverts to pay up. They demand, and get, pretty much whatever they want, and I have to pay for it. If they don’t get it by directly lobbying our environmentally controlled fish and wildlife departments, because they can easily grab hold of a few million dollars, we (meaning hunters) are forced to spent even more money to fight these insane totalitarians in court or at the ballot box. They pay nothing and yet control fish and game management. I pay everything, and am at a point where there is nothing left for my investment. The price of my license inches upwards, while my opportunity to harvest a deer and fill my freezer continues to drop. And I am supposed to remain quiet and like it?

Nope! Sorry! Ain’t going to happen.

Most cannot, and will not, recognize what is known as incrementalism – that is a diminishing department one tiny bit at a time. They think all is well and good and that people like me are just complainers and should shut up and go away.

I, for one, am sick and tired of footing the bill and paying the way of the animal perverts, preservationists and environmentalists. I know that when the environmentalists are asking to pay up, they will demand more seats on committees and more power to control. They already have that. Recently we saw the MDIFW appoint the person who headed up the effort in Maine to ban bear hunting, to a seat on a committee that makes management decisions. This is insanity! What cost hunters millions of dollars to fight, they were rewarded by watching the leaders of the MDIFW hand over more control to these totalitarians. What’s the point anymore.

I am willing to say that the only reason hunters are tolerated is because they pay the bills. Yes, I know, the wildlife managers certainly don’t act like they know who pays their salaries and pensions, and as long as they don’t care, why should we continue to invest in something that soon will yield no return.

It’s a terrible business proposition with absolutely little future.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

The “Enlightened” Vegan

VeganKnowItAll

Share

Like With Trump, NRA’s Blind Followers Remain Ignorant – by Choice

wake up america

From an article published in “American Hunter,” an NRA propaganda platform, we learn that the NRA is going to stop the animal rights groups…before “it will be too late.” Oh, brother.

I see such a statement as being analogous to an ant climbing up an elephant’s leg with rape on his mind. It is a joke really, but ignorance provides a platform to launch such nonsense before a willing and captured audience for the purpose of sucking them dry of more membership money. Isn’t it always about the money?

The NRA says, “Whether on social media or through legislative bodies, the HLF Network is mobilizing and leveraging communication through industry partners—delivering the same content to everyone from the three million followers at Cabela’s to those of the Dallas and Houston Safari Clubs.”

WOW! Even if they did this, they can’t even come close to Google’s efforts to pay trolls to control the Internet. But, if I send them more money, I bet THEN they could get it done – wink, wink!

Either the NRA is completely clueless about who controls the media, or they do know and they are deliberately misleading you.

In case readers haven’t figured it out, I have basically no use for the NRA – I have no use for any politically motivated groups. They lie and exploit, even manufacture “issues,” for more effective campaign pledges of money from unsuspecting blind followers.

Environmentalism, which is the war lord over the animal rights perverts, have about a 50-year head start on the NRA’s announcement to counter the animals rights groups and their well-oiled machine that have the blessings of the Media, which is controlled by the Council on Foreign Relations, the real government organization that runs this country and others. They created and controlled Environmentalism and with it has been the activism of animal rights groups.

I believe the NRA knows this and hopes like hell, for financial reasons, you don’t figure it out.

If readers had a solid understanding of the realities in man-created governments, they could see from the actions of the past, along with events at this year’s NRA convention, that the NRA and like organizations are not your friend. The NRA likes to take credit for the efforts in Heller v. Washington, D.C. that resulted in what clueless people think was a victory for gun rights, when the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote the majority opinion piece declaring that the Second Amendment was a right given to individuals, and then turned around and gave it all away by saying that this right must come with “reasonable” limits and those limits would be decided in future courts. But most people don’t understand that. Somebody told them it was a victory, therefore it must be a victory.

While at the same time, the NRA hands out an award to a company who conducts surveys. We are all supposed to blindly and unquestionably accept what we are told that this company has done so much for the hunting industry because they conduct surveys that brainwashed people think are in support of their interests in hunting and shooting, refusing to see the real end results.

It’s like pounding your head against a wall trying to teach people about the politics of polls and surveys. No poll or survey can be trusted and should never be used. They are designed, either directly through powerful political machinations or indirectly through the educational process of passing on to others the art of outcome based research, manipulation through wording and application of the Delphi Technique.

However, people will get all excited because the NRA said they are going to stop the animal rights. People got all excited when an unknown community organizer preached “Hope and Change.” The people are all excited about “Make America Great Again” and are not interested in the real man. It’s about what he says he will do, never what he has done. People will get excited because the NRA is going to get this done before it’s too late. It is too late!

Nobody will seek truth. They will open their wallets and give because somebody said something they wanted to hear. We refuse to learn. We are insane. We look to man-gods for answers and leadership.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Societal Emotions and Ignorance Rule New Hampshire Fish and Game Management

Emotional idiots, who cannot see their own destructive ways, fueled by ignorance and hatred took over wildlife management at the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, saying hunting and or trapping of 50 bobcats, out of 1,400 was a dangerous thing to do for a “recovering” population of bobcats. Even members of the New Hampshire Game Commission cited the call for a 50-cat hunt, “was not in the financial best interest of the public.” Where’s the science in all of this?

Unfortunately, the media, as might be predicted, presented a one-sided report loaded with all the emotional clap-trap from those controlled by perverted animal emotions, that can’t see the wildlife destruction they promote. “a committee member, said having a bobcat season would breach the endangered species act by putting Canada lynx, a threatened species, at risk of being hunted because the two cats have the same habitats.” I wonder if this committee member ever considered the damage too many bobcats will do to protected Canada lynx? Idiots like this worry about whether or not a lynx might get chased by a hunting dog but never consider such things as competition of prey species. A bobcat, with a greater diversity of prey selection for survival than the lynx, will be around longer than the lynx. The lynx, a cat with a preference for snowshoe hare, will stay or go depending on the availability of the rabbit. What happens to the lynx when the growing number of bobcats eat up all the snowshoe hare? Duh!

Also consider the nonsense to reject a bobcat hunting season because it was not “in the financial best interest of the public.” Sporting a third grade education, on average, of the Legislative committee, all they were capable of calculating was the cost of a bobcat permit and the cost to implement the hunt. Beyond their ability to comprehend, evidently, is what it is going to cost the department, and in extension the public, to continue to allow an exploding bobcat population to further destroy and/or prevent recovery of the Canada lynx, among other things. Obviously never considered is the fact that bobcats prey on deer, in particular deer fawns. They also will kill moose calves. If the bobcat population is allowed to grow, it surely means a serious reduction to a deer herd that is not actually in abundance now. What will this cost the public? Is this in the best financial interest of the public? New Hampshire is concerned about the moose herd. The same idiots wanting to protect the bobcat, at the expense of other species, blame the loss of moose to climate change. There’s no end to the idiocy that rules the day.

The bottom line in all of this is that wildlife management is a scientific endeavor and should be administered as a real and solid scientific process, not one that is overtaken by environmentalists and animal rights perverts who know nothing of the realities of wildlife.

Because of very poor reporting in the article linked to above, readers didn’t get a chance to hear from any of the biologists within the Department of Fish and Game to discover what the reasons were that they proposed a hunt to begin with. Surely it wasn’t a money-making proposal.

BobcatWheee

 

Share

The Etymology of “Conservation Biology”

By James Beers: (Part II)

etymology, (et-e-mol-oji), n. The study of historical linguistic change, especially as applied to individual words.

conservation, (kon-ser-va-shun), n.  1. The act of conserving; preservation.  2. Official supervision of rivers, forests, wildlife, etc.  3.  A District under such supervision.

biology, (bi-ol-oji), n.  The science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena; often especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, etc.

I have been asked to explain the origin (i.e. etymology) of the term “conservation biology”.

The term “conservation biology” has a very interesting history in the USA that is fraught with hidden agendas, stolen credibility and its use as a means to grow government and increase bureaucratic power while disguised as both a harmless and beneficial means of “saving” renewable natural resources.

The mid to late 1800’s and early 1900’s were a chaotic period in American history: the West was settled, farms sprung up everywhere, Americans killed wildlife for personal food and to sell to others for food; buffalo herds dwindled and then were extirpated and large predators were eliminated or greatly reduced to make homesteads, farming and animal husbandry possible; and some wild animals like Passenger Pigeons and North American Parrots were recognized as having become extinct.  Large swaths of forestlands were cut to build homes, railroads, mines and infrastructure like bridges and tunnels.  Grazing on “open range” was intense as a result of government reluctance to transfer public lands in the West to private ownership after The Civil War thus leading to the historic abuse of “the commons” as seen in Europe for centuries.

Not all of the reckless abuse of renewable (forests, forage and fish/wildlife) natural resources was attributable to European settlers.  Native people were generally nomadic and abandoned sites as they became polluted, relatively devoid of food for a host of reasons, or increasingly dangerous due to human factors and/or the presence/behavior of dangerous wild animals. Native people used fires to drive herd animals off cliffs and for other purposes: these fires had both positive and negative effects on wildlife, trees and habitats including human dwellings.  Native people carried on lively trading for centuries in animal parts such as the bills of the now-extinct Ivory-billed Woodpecker whose value outside its range up to and into present-day Canada was immense in terms of the economy of the day.

Mention of the impacts of natural phenomenon on North American species and the landscape are seldom noted when describing the American concern about the impact of European settlement on “rivers, forests and wildlife”.  For centuries the impacts of glaciers and low temperatures (Ice Ages) made many species extinct from dinosaurs to mastodons that are still being dug up and in some instances eaten and exploited for ivory in Northern parts of our globe.  Earthquakes such as the New Madrid Earthquakes (1811-1812) that rang church bells 1,000 miles away, rechanneled the Mississippi River and even caused it to run backwards for a period of time, caused great damage and desolation to “rivers, forests and wildlife”.  Add into this mix periodic overgrazing by wild animal herds; predator population highs and lows due to everything from food availability, disease, weather, human purges and competition with other predators; plus learned behaviors of predators as some like saber-toothed tigers became extinct and wolves, cougars and grizzly bears came and went with the factors mentioned earlier in this paragraph and you have a picture of a dramatically changing North American environment which was affected by European (“developed?”, “advanced?”, “technological?”, “industrial?” take your pick) rearrangement of the landscape, governance and human activities.

The early 1900’s saw a great awakening of the national conscience about what was seen to be the extirpation of renewable national resources everywhere you looked.  The speeches, writing and actions of the like of Teddy Roosevelt, his forester pal Gifford Pinchot, wildlife aesthete Aldo Leopold and semi-philosophers such as John Muir and John Burroughs all called for dramatic action by government to “save” Yosemite/Yellowstone/ Forests/Buffalo/Birds/”Wilderness”/etc.

America was growing rich and powerful at the time as railroads, steel mills, jobs and an immigrant work force combined to create a national vision that we could do whatever we set our mind to.  The 19th century idea of Manifest Destiny (the idea in the middle 19th century, that it “was the destiny of the U.S. to expand its territory over the whole of North America and to extend and enhance its political, social, and economic influences”) came to be viewed in an international sense in that we (the US) were becoming so much more powerful and rich than any other nation in the world that we would “lead the way” into the future.

Federal lands being withheld in the late 19th and early 20th century by an increasingly powerful federal government (thanks to the perception that the Civil War not only destroyed “States ‘Rights’” but also indicated things would be better if the federal government remained in charge of things rather than giving State governments too much jurisdiction) remained in federal “ownership’.  Some of these lands were classified as Refuges for Wildlife and others were added to the Yellowstone concept of being “National Parks”.  Other such lands were declared “National Forests” and still others (an enormous acreage) were classified as grazing or “public lands” to be “managed” for public benefit.  Suffice to say, thus were born the US Fish and Wildlife Service (formerly the Bureau of Biological Survey), the National Park Service, the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.

Gradually, each bureaucracy began writing regulations and “working” with a compliant (even then) Congress to buy private lands and expand current landholdings and declare new units everywhere.  As in the last 50 years of the passage of the ESA, Antiquities Act, Wilderness Act, et al; Congressmen and Senators quickly saw the benefits to their re-election of a refuge/park/forest in every District and State (like the “chicken in every pot”).  Bureaucracies called for “research” activities, “education” activities, operations funding, maintenance funding, etc. and each year – “more laws”, “more” employees and “more” funding.

Let us return to that late 19th and early 20 century period.  As citizens in polluted cities and rural families developed an agreement with government that indeed human activities were causing too much devastation to “rivers, forests and wildlife”, an understandable accord arose between the governed and the governed that government action was needed.  Now let us concentrate on the “wildlife” aspects (in the broadest sense of all wild animals and their supportive landscapes and plant habitats).

The Bureau of Biological Survey (the precursor of the US Fish and Wildlife) was the lead government wildlife agency as the US Forest Service was the lead “forest” agency and today’s BLM is generally recognized as the lead (off Forest Service and Wildlife Refuge lands) agency for grazing and mineral development.

The Bureau of Biological Survey offered three nostrums to reverse the concerns of the American public about the future of wildlife in America:

  1. A robust federal Animal Damage Control Program nationwide to both reduce and eliminate the loss of valued wildlife like deer, elk and moose; and to reduce and eliminate damage by wildlife (mostly predators) to private property like livestock, dogs agricultural activities and to reduce and eliminate any dangers to human health and safety.
  2. A Wildlife “Research” Program to determine the Life Histories of “wildlife” and thus to make “scientific” recommendations regarding their survival needs and ways to minimize any threats to their continued survival or methods to control them.
  3. A “System” of Wildlife Refuges where practical wildlife management processes resulting from “scientific research” would be applied both to test their effectiveness and to provide exemplary models for management of State and Private lands where wildlife considerations might show benefits to the Nation.

Note that all three were to be based on “science” guiding “research”.  This was the age of American inventions and “applied science”.  Henry Ford, Cyrus McCormick, Thomas Edison, Tesla, Orville and Wilbur Wright, and Albert Einstein made “science” almost biblical as the last word in whatever field you were interested in.  In the field of wildlife, the “science” of Biologywas clearly the basis for the promise of government deliverance of wildlife from what ailed us at that time.

But, biology alone was a somewhat disconcerting idea.  Would these government “scientists” sit around in laboratories looking into microscopes and puffing on pipes in some seminar in conference rooms?  Would they publish papers in Latin and require listeners to either have advanced degrees or simply take “their word” about what was needed?  No, the noun “biology” needed a modifier and adjective to set the public and politicians minds at ease.

The word “Conservation” fit the bill perfectly.  This was long before the concept of “renewable natural resources” (wildlife, timber, forage) as opposed “non-renewable natural resources” (oil, coal, natural gas) was used so the notion that “conserving” these precious resources (while continuing to USE them) was the goal that was understandable and supported by citizen and politician alike.  Conservation Biology was thought to have a “good ring to it”.

Now, before proceeding further with the term “Conservation Biology”, any discussion must consider a very important factor.  At no time was there any public intention or statement that this “Conservation Biology” would be the basis for:

–       introducing and protecting wolves;

–       introducing rattlesnakes into settled states like Massachusetts;

–       arresting persons for protecting their families and property from grizzly bears or cougars;

–       wrecking the economies and social structures of Counties on behalf of owls or woodpeckers;

–       federal/state “partnering” to introduce and protect free-roaming buffalo in the midst of settled rural communities and agricultural/livestock operations;

–       federal spending of Billions of dollars per year by the federal government to force state governments into a federal subcontractor status and to bribe Universities to become publishing houses for “science” that is little more than alchemy notes copied from medieval wizards;

–       etc., etc.

Had any of those early wildlife philosophers, bureaucrats or political leaders inferred that “Conservation Biology” would be used to:

–       close public lands,

–       condemn private property,

–       eliminate hunting,

–       eliminate fishing,

–       eliminate trapping,

–       justify using predators to shut down ranching,

–       justify closing grazing lands,

–       justify increasing lead ammunition and fishing tackle costs,

–       forcing rural families to live with uncontrolled deadly and destructive predators,

–       eliminate highly desirable wildlife like brown trout, pheasants, chukars, etc. while undesirable and destructive wildlife like pythons, boa constrictors and Asian carp are imported and allowed to escape into settled landscapes,

–       justify tearing down irrigation/power dams,

–       finance buying private property and easing private property and expanding federal authorities until the entire nation is under federal control,

–       etc., etc.

Not only would anyone making such a claim have been thought daffy, if there was even the slightest chance that such unimaginable things would result – the very existence of these four agencies, their funding and their budgets would have been in great jeopardy if not eliminated all-together.

Make no mistake: “Conservation Biology” existed and grew NOT because it was thought necessary to impede or destroy American rights or the American Way of Life.

“Conservation Biology” existed and grew because the American People (i.e. We the People…”)wanted to make every reasonable and affordable effort to sustain wildlife in the midst of the settled American landscape and the American Way of Life so generously provided by our Constitutional society and our protected human activities as described in the Declaration of Independence as “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

Thus, once the bureaucratic wildlife ball got rolling during WWI, the federal government signed a Treaty with Britain to protect 212 bird species thereby seizing state jurisdiction over those birds.  Subsequent Treaties expanded the number of federal birds.  A federal law was passed to outlaw the interstate transportation of contraband wildlife.  Refuges were bought, “rounded-out”, and proposed annually.  Federal conniving (the correct word) with UN staffs and faux “Treaties” led to all manner of “necessary” land control and land set-aside maneuvers as well as all manner of import controls that have all but killed the sustainable international commerce in wildlife from big game hunting to commercial uses of wildlife parts.

States began to professionalize their own wildlife agencies made up at first of mostly game wardens and then with “managers” with titles like Upland Game “Biologist”, Big Game “Biologist”.  Universities began teaching courses and then forming Departments and then even Colleges granting degrees up to and including PhD’s in “Wildlife Biology” and “Wildlife Management” and “Wildlife Resources”; all based on or derived from “Conservation Biology”.

Simultaneously, the US Fish and Wildlife Service:

–       grew annually,

–       hired “more” biologists, refuge managers and enforcers,

–       lobbied and got an Excise Tax on fishing equipment, arms and ammunition to assist the states to “professionalize” under federal oversight (i.e. be more like their federal cousins),

–       joined with radicals in the 1960’s to lobby and obtain the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Animal Welfare Act, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Wilderness Act, etc.

The end result being a “Great Robbery” of State Jurisdictions and Authorities by federal bureaucracies based on fuzzy “science” claims of federal “experts” and romance “Biology” ground out by Universities kenneling sub Rosa federal subcontractors with initials after their names.

While “Conservation Biology” started all this, the term fell into disuse from the 1970’s forward.  The reason “Conservation Biology” fell into disuse was because of the steady takeover of the US Fish and Wildlife Service by environmental/animal rights activists and interest groups.  These radicals absolutely hated (the correct word) hunting, fishing, trapping, grazing, timber management, fur products, and all the trappings of European settlement and the American system of government.  They advocated an all-powerful central government enacting Rural Clearances and abolishing every human activity and things like guns that they did not favor.

In the US Fish and Wildlife Service they transferred the timeless and beneficial animal damage control program to the Agriculture Department where they could roundly condemn it and advocate its elimination.  They imposed ammunition restrictions for wildlife under federal jurisdiction.  They shifted refuges from models of wildlife “management” to sealed enclaves where non-management led to worthless and overgrown disasters.  They shifted enforcers from wildlife protectors to human regulators and overseers as happened in the BLM and US Forest Service.  They began lying like National Park Service employees (“the elk are in the back country”, “don’t believe people that say that wolves kill and eliminate elk”, etc.) and State employees (“global warming has killed most of the elk and moose”, “don’t believe anyone that tells you that wolves killing moose calves has eliminated most of the moose”, and the whopper “wolves don’t attack and are not a danger to people”).

Many of the activist employees came in under the shadow of Equal Employment Opportunity.  That is the federal program giving women and minorities preferences over white males.  This was done by eliminating requirements and standards for hiring, transferring and promoting much like Apartheid in South Africa.  Other activists began infiltrating the US Fish and Wildlife Service politically like the current Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and many lesser “appointments” not accurately publicized.

Beginning in the 1990’s these activists shared one sterling attribute.  They did not hesitate to say they “hunt and fish”.  Although in most cases this was a plain lie, it was used as a mask over their real agenda, the elimination of wildlife management for humans and the advent of strict human management by government justified where possible on claimed benefits for wildlife from the proclaimed “endangered’ mega-critter to the lowliest and unseen critter that provided a “necessary” niche in some contrived ecosystem and was in great need of yet another land purchase, regulation or arrest.

During this period (1990 – 2014) the term Conservation Biology was, to US Fish and Wildlife Service and its New Age cooperators and employees, much like the term “untermenschen” (A Nazi term for Jews and other inferior – to the Nazis –  races) is in Jewish and Eastern European conservations; that is a despicable word from the past.  However, as opposition to all the federal abuses of citizens in the name of wildlife grows and the “science” it is based on is seen to be bogus and as we approach a Presidential election wherein the biggest “citizen abuse by wildlife” political support Party (both Parties support all of this wildlife abuse of the citizenry, one only slightly less than the other) worries that they may not only lose “more” power but that anti-establishment candidates might actually get elected and reverse things: illusions and diversions are called for.

Reigniting the widespread use of the benign and fondly-remembered term “Conservation Biology” is one such illusion.  It is like wolf puppies in the tender arms of a young lady employee in a government uniform.  Who could be against this except for some pervert that tore the wings off flies as a youth and grew up into a misogynist?  It is like federal attempts to “List” the Sage Grouse and then suddenly realizing that the Sage Grouse were doing better than anyone could expect (“but it’s the thought that counts”).  Why “they” are once again using “Conservation Biology” as they (fill-in-the-blank).  Who could be against that?

So as I write, “Conservation Biology” is everywhere.  Like releasing thousands of criminals from prison or prattling on about how Planned Parenthood sale of fetal tissue rivals the Salk vaccine for Polio, don’t be misled by this restoration of an antiquated term like some quaint term in a Shakespeare Play.  It is simply one more ploy to keep you playing the federal carnival game of “which shell is the pea under?”  It is “their” rules and “your money”.

Like the once-greatest walleye lake in Minnesota, Mille Lacs, that Indians netted so much they crashed the walleye fishery and then began buying up the resorts and cabins on the shores at rock bottom prices with the millions Minnesotans pour into the Indian casinos; America is similarly being destroyed and bought up by the taxes we render to Washington and the debt we allow Washington to ring up.  Americans, like Minnesotans have “met the enemy and he is us”.

Jim Beers

22 February 2016

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

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.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Maine Court Will Consider Appeal of Earlier Moot Decision on MDIFW Campaign Conduct

According to an article in the Bangor Daily News, the Maine Supreme Court will consider an appeal of a lower court ruling declaring a court challenge as “moot” because the lawsuit never came to the courts until after the referendum was voted on. The appeal comes from the totalitarian group, Mainer’s for Fair Bear Hunting (MFFBH), a front name for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The issue here is whether or not an appeal should be granted. It appears that MFFBH is seeking an appeal based on their assumption that Justice Joyce Wheeler’s decision to dismiss the case because the referendum had already been decided, was an act that warrants an appeal. The higher court will decide.

If the appeal is granted, then the Supreme Court will hear MFFBH’s lawsuit.

What is laughable in all of this is the double standards broadly revealed by this anti-human group in which it wants their legal rights protected at the cost of taking away the rights of other in order that they can get their way.

I have never supported any law that diminishes anyone’s right to petition the state or any other right. While it may be troubling and upsetting to some that any totalitarian group, in their psychotic ways, moves to destroy the lifestyles of others, hidden behind the perverted scheme of animal welfare and protection, there is a due process, with civil rights that are extended to everyone, whether we like it or not.

It’s unfortunate the totalitarians don’t see it the same way (that’s why they are totalitarians, doing the work of the fascists).

Maine sportsmen organizations have tried to get laws passed that would prohibit or limit the rights of people (even those opposed to hunting, fishing and trapping) to petition the state on issues of wildlife management. As it most always appears, and probably is, a waste of time and money, the right does and should exist. That door swings both ways.

In the case of the bear hunting referendum of this past year, the Humane Society of the United States, were doing everything they could to limit the speech and the ability to do their jobs, of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. It became clear early on in the campaign that MDIFW’s education program was very effective in teaching voters about the science of bear management and the difficulties it faced in carrying out their legislative mandate to care for a healthy bear population. The HSUS saw this as a trouble spot and so came the lawsuit demanding the courts put an end to MDIFW’s education program.

If the appeal is granted, I’m assuming this will be the meat of the case – that MDIFW did not follow the laws in the books about how the department may or may not participate in such campaigns.

Whether the appeal is granted or not, the issue needs to be addressed. It is my opinion that voters have the right to hear from all Maine Government departments on any issues that affect the departments and thus the voters themselves. How else can voters make informed and intelligent decisions? If the court determines that what MDIFW did during the bear referendum campaign to be in violation of existing laws, then efforts should be taken to get those laws changed. That’s how the process is supposed to work.

While it is clear that the HSUS, i.e. Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting’s goal is to end bear hunting, and all hunting and trapping, their real hope here is to be able to censor MDIFW. With censorship in hand, the next time the totalitarians muster a petition to change the desired lifestyles of the many Maine residents, they will know that the departments mouths have been zipped shut and thus their propaganda can flourish unchallenged. And just whom does that benefit other than just psychotic animal rights groups and environmentalists?

BeaverMoose

Share

If We Evolved From Monkeys, Why Are Some Dumber Than a Monkey?

Everyone has a right to an opinion. With that opinion there is no guarantee that it will even be intelligent. Such is the case of a full-blown moron who writes about what he believes is the Myth of Hunting Conservation. It really doesn’t get any more stupid than the utter nonsense written. The Bangor Daily News, considering that this article is published on one of their own blog sites, should consider publishing a disclaimer that they are not responsible for contributing writers being so ignorant of subjects they choose to write about.

MonkeySayingItAll

Share

Powerful Animal Rights Lobby Puts Profits Over Mankind

This is a rebuttal to a hypocritical blog by Val Philbrick on Don Loprieno’s blog at the Bangor Daily News.

The blog spends ample time attempting to convince readers that lobbying efforts by certain members of Maine’s hunting, fishing and trapping industry are corrupt and causes harm to wildlife in pursuit of profits. Ignorance and hypocrisy abound.

I basically have two points to make. The first is that while the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is still practiced, at least to some degree by fish and game agencies that have not fully succumbed to the “new ways to discuss wildlife management,” it is a proven model for the management of abundant wildlife of all species for the benefit of ALL. The new way wildlife management is discussed, promotes scarcity and disease, along with the destruction of rights and private property, while limiting access to public lands. Over-protection of animals is a perverted practice that places the health, safety and general welfare of people at risk at the expense of people’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The second point to make is that it is quite hypocritical that this author, evidently suggesting lobbying for the hunting, fishing and trapping industry is somehow unethical, immoral and a danger to wildlife, doesn’t happen to mention that she is a member of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). If one wanted to discuss ethics and morality as related to HSUS and PETA, a book could be written.

Evidently a man is not worthy of his hire. There seems to be opposition to a couple of tens-of-thousands of dollars made to promote and protect the hunting, fishing and trapping industries while there is no mention of the MILLIONS of dollars being made by members of HSUS, PETA and many other Environmental and animal rights groups. I wonder how this small handful of Maine outdoor industry lobbyists’ ethics would stand up in comparison to the filthy, rotten, lying, cheating and stealing done by most of these Environmental/Animal Rights groups?

This author claims that lobbying the government to perpetuate a proven means of wildlife management is exploiting wildlife for profits. The author indicates that this practice should be ended. Really? I certainly have my own opposing thoughts and opinions to the corruption of lobbying, as it exists today, and so, if one is to call for the ending of lobbying of the hunting, fishing and trapping industry, then let’s put an end to the perverted and exceedingly corrupt lobbying efforts of the HSUS and PETA, along with any and all groups. In short, let’s outlaw lobbying at every level of government.

I find it interesting that for years groups like HSUS and PETA, as well as Environmental groups, have become spoiled due to their fine organizational skills and fund raising, to do their lobbying and propagandizing of a nation, unopposed. Decades too late, the lobby opposed to the radical and perverted ways of HSUS and PETA, etc. are beginning to get their act together, in the sense that they are figuring out that the best way to fight fire is with fire. They have been left with no other choice. And now we see animal rights perverts and human haters throwing hissy-fits because a handful of lobbyists in Maine are opposing anti-human activities of the far more powerful and organized groups such as HSUS and PETA.

If this author is honestly suggesting that an end be put to political lobbying in Maine, then sign me up. There is nothing more that I would like to be witness to, than HSUS, PETA, Wildlife Alliance of Maine, Audubon, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Council, Animal Welfare Institute, and all the rest banned from buying votes in the Legislature. Bring it on!

If the call for an end to lobbying for everyone is not sincere, and this is only an attempt to clear the field of any opposition for the animal rights knuckleheads, then pointing the finger at the hunting, fishing and trapping lobby only shows the totalitarianism that drives these close-minded groups.

Share

Radical Maine Animal Rights Activist Seeks Investigation of MDIFW/Advisory Committee

John Glowa of South China, Maine, most noted for his off-the-wall advocacy for the protection of all animals (over people), even at the detriment of some animals, has asked Maine Senate President Michael Thibodeau, Maine House Speaker Mark Eves, and Senator Roger Katz, to launch an investigation into the actions of the Legislature’s Committee representing the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). Glowa claims, “the committee is unanimously stacked with consumptive users-hunters, trappers, fishermen or supporters of hunting, trapping and fishing.”

Glowa calls for representation on the Committee by non-consumptive users stating that, “There are NO committee members who advocate on behalf of non-consumptive users and on behalf of non-consumptive use of Maine’s fish and wildlife resources.” I think Mr. Glowa is confusing two distinct and separate issues. The MDIFW manages all wildlife, some of which happens to be game species of which Glowa seems to lose sleep over and the idea that some of Maine’s tax payers “consume” specific, designated game species, as part of a proven model of wildlife management. The only place that the advocacy of “non-consumptive” wildlife may have is when wildlife science calls for reductions or elimination of consumption of a species in order to maintain responsible management of the species in question.

Mr. Glowa, and far too many animal advocates, have lost sight of – or never had it in sight before – the fact that had it not been for the formulation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, in combination with fish and game departments, funded mostly by sportsmen, some of whom happen to be consumptive users and some non-consumptive users, the complainant wouldn’t have anything to complain about.

Proper game and wildlife management sometimes calls for the reduction of specie populations in order to sustain a healthy proportion of animals in question. Non-consumption has no part in proper scientific management of wildlife. Non-consumptive use is a political term coined in order to promote the radical, post-normal, ideals of animal rights activists and carries with it not an ounce of actual wildlife science and responsible management.

If it so happens that MDIFW, or any fish and game department, goes about it’s management plans in a way that, without putting the species in question at risk, increases their revenue in order to improve upon their management goals, how can any such action be considered NOT in the best interest of Maine taxpayers AND the wildlife?

It should be for these reasons alone that no followers of political, animal rights idealism, should be permitted to participate in decision making about scientific hunting, fishing and trapping management.

Upon examination of the words contained in two letters sent by Glowa to Thibodeau, Eves and Katz, one can find that the author believes that consumptive use of natural resources is not advocating for the resource. On the contrary and it has been proven for several decades now in what is a model of wildlife management that is the envy of the world. Again, this is nothing more than a representation of an individual’s political idealism, and not scientific, views of how tax payers choose to make the best use of their natural resources. In this case, the small amount of “consumptive” use, is a windfall for everyone and should be promoted not destroyed as is being suggested.

In an addendum to the original request for an investigation, Glowa, empty-handed when it comes to wildlife science to support his political views, distorts facts in an attempt to sell others on the misrepresented claim that there are more wildlife watchers who spend more money than do hunters, trappers and fishermen. Glowa states, “wildlife watchers spend some $800 million annually in Maine, far more than is spent by hunters and fishermen combined.” Any use of these numbers is a dishonest representation of the actual data compiled in reference to the subject.

It should be understood by readers that the collective term “wildlife watcher” if formed into “Wildlife Watcher,” meaning an actual group or member(s) of a group who specifically and purposefully go “wildlife watching,” that is, in the exact same fashion as one goes hunting, trapping and/or fishing, then figures from that activity could be derived and used in comparison, i.e comparing apples to apples, etc.

When the surveys are done to compile the information referenced, anybody who said that on any outing in Maine, they saw a wildlife animal, that was registered as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a Wildlife Watcher.

Of the claimed $800 million spent annually on “wildlife watching,” the dishonesty comes in that people did NOT spend $800 million specifically to go watch Maine wildlife. It’s easier to track hunters, trappers and fishermen because they buy licenses, the money of which is used to properly manage healthy game species – a benefit to all Maine people including those who enjoy catching a glimpse of a deer on the way to grandma’s house – of which that “glimpse” gets recorded as “wildlife watching.” Shame, shame.

Perhaps the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Legislative Committee are guilty of some wrongdoing and, more than likely are guilty of corruption at some level – after all it is politics – I don’t see how refusing to place (if that is actually what has happened) non-consumptive users, real or fake, on this committee makes them crooks. In actuality, I would commend the committee for keeping the best interest of scientific wildlife management at the focus of their work and not oiling of some squeaky-wheel, politically-driven, advocate of non-consumptive (anti-hunting, trapping, fishing) resource use.

Normal life, calls for the responsible USE, U-S-E of natural resources. To deny anyone consumptive use of game animals, as part of a proven, scientific program, is advocating for scarcity, which is nothing more than advocating for the destruction life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is the advocacy and promotion of death!

Share

Quack Up: Animal rights activist beaten with duck

An animal rights activist was beaten with a duck by a Spanish woman defending one of the country’s most bizarre and controversial festival traditions. The man was whacked with the bird while he filmed the annual “duck chase” in the Catalonian seaside town of Roses, where every August ducks are thrown into the Mediterranean and then caught and brought back to the shore by swimmers. As the attack goes on, animal rights activists gathered on the shore can be heard chanting, “You would not do that to your dog,” before they were removed by police.

Source: Animal rights activist beaten with duck in Spain – Yahoo News

Share