May 31, 2020

Erosion of Self-Preservation: Man Against Beast

Self-preservation, it is said, is a natural sense that organisms are born with. Threatened by something or someone, that in our perceptions, having learned from experience is dangerous, we naturally move to avoid it, to shy away and even erect barriers, physical and emotional, to protect ourselves. It’s a pretty powerful emotion and has served well throughout history in the preservation of man in many and varied degrees of existence.

Thinking in the negative on this, it would then be logical to conclude that in order to diminish self-preservation, attacks on any and all aspects of what makes it strong, will weaken the instinct. From my way of thinking, a desire by anyone to do this has to be rooted in evil and sinister thinking.

Pain and fear are motivating factors in self-preservation. When exposed to a potentially dangerous situation for the first time, perhaps our experience tells us to proceed with caution. It is not normal to want to experience pain and fear is learned. Part of that learned process may be to have a fearful respect of all things unknown to us.

Most of us adults have knowledge of this. Most adults do not have knowledge of the dangers that can result when people, through a vast array of circumstances of contrived and sinister methods, can have their natural instinct toward self-preservation eroded, weakened, dumbed-down, desensitized. The object of such actions is to achieve anything from death to political and personal agendas. Most of us are confronted with this on a daily basis and most of us don’t know it.

Is it not a natural sense of self-preservation to fear, even out of respect, many wild animals? i.e. bears, tigers, lions, hyenas, cougars, jaguars, wolves. We have learned, even perhaps from the very beginning, that tools can be implemented and strategy laid out to overpower these vicious animals when necessary. Have we then lost our instincts toward self-preservation? We shouldn’t have but perhaps our perceptions of how to deal with threatening situations changes.

What happens when humans attain some degree of animal worship, or perhaps better described as animal protection? Would you protect an animal that is threatening a home, a neighborhood, a village, and maybe that animal is killing people, because you, for whatever reasons, think that an animal, regardless of what it has done, must be protected? If so why?

When we consider the story of Little Red Riding Hood, in this modern era of predator protection, there are those who claim this story is an unfair depiction of the poor wolf. These people want people to fall in love with the wolf, that the wolf is misunderstood and that in the day when the story was often told, it was some kind of child abuse to unnecessarily instill fear in children. But, in reality, the story was an accurate depiction of a vicious predator that preyed on children and the story was created as a tool to strengthen the sense of self-preservation in the children.

I was reading an article in the February 2014 issue of Outdoor Life magazine. It was a scanned copy and so I cannot provide a link to the article. The article was about problems in Mozambique, in Africa, with marauding lions and the killing of people by these lions and other predators, such as hyenas. I think mostly the author attributes the problems here to what he refers to as “a vacuum of lawlessness.”

That probably is a contributing factor but there are other things to consider. For example, there are other reasons besides “a vacuum of lawlessness” that have caused lions to come in close proximity to humans, to the point that the lions are acquiring a taste for human flesh. The author writes:

“When the lions come hunting, they come into close proximity to people, and the cats develop a sense of familiarity that breeds lethal contempt.”

The author points out that attitudes among the people are a contributing factor toward how and why lions are attacking one specific village:

“There’s something unusual about the relationship between man and beast in this place,” says Derek Littleton, a resident professional hunter. “The folks here are generally docile, shy, self-effacing. Lions are generally wary of man, but here that’s not always the case. They almost lord themselves over the people in some places. Lions do not take the same liberties with the Maasai, for instance. They’ll attack them, too, but they’re a damn sight less brazen about it.”

This simple illustration shows that how wild animals act and react is related to the attitudes, the actions, of the people who come in contact with these beasts.

Due to circumstances in the surrounding area, it seems that there is great competition, perhaps a level greater than what might be considered normal. As such, the author says that a human meal has become the best form of nutrition for these wild cats. In addition, many of the believed “normal” habits of lions can not be trusted. In one example, a 4-year old lion was attributed with the killings of 40 people.

There is, however, even more to this problem than simply too many lions and other creatures competing for a limited amount of food in addition to villagers that don’t seem to care much for doing anything about the problem. The other problem is lion worship.

“Adding to the woes of those who seek to deal with the killers is the curious attitude of the locals, many of whom believe the lions are merely acting on behalf of aggrieved ancestral spirits seeking to purge the community of those possessed by evil.”

This belief is supported by the local “witch doctors” and often successful lobbying of politicians creates prohibitions on any attempt to kill problem predators.

The author ends his article this way:

“And so, the ancient contest between man and beast continues in the east-African wilderness, by turns enduring and resisting the vagaries of modernity. George Adamson, the author of Born Free, warned that nature would strike back at civilization that intruded too deeply into wild places. Perhaps the lions of northern Mozambique are in that vanguard.”

There are those who would readily accept the accounts given in this story as very much acceptable, considering it takes place in a foreign, third-world country, as though backwoods ignorance is the root cause of a certain degree of lack of self-preservation. And perhaps that is very much so. What we have been told here is not all that unusual, is it? We might like to think it is.

Lions are ravaging villages and killing people in Mozambique. The reasons offered include: Too many lions; too many of other species competing in many forms with the lions, causing them to seek alternative sources of prey; changing attitudes of locals; witch doctors demanding the protection of lions for cult/religious reasons; politics caving in to the demands of witch doctor lobbyists, etc.

Just how “third world” is this? Is any of this all that much different than what we find here in the United States? Due to predator protection, for various reasons, many places here, in a country that is looked upon as a leader in progressiveness, are seeing significant rises in the population of large predators, i.e. bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, etc.

It seems on a more frequent occasion, we are subjected to accounts of large predators attacking humans and livestock. Once again I am reminded of Dr. Valerius Geist’s, “When Do Wolves Become Dangerous to Humans?” Many of his seven steps can apply to other large predators as well; perhaps even lions in Mozambique.

Through emotionally laced propaganda, the attitudes of people toward potentially dangerous predators is being changed. Lies being perpetrated by predator protection groups for political and personal agendas, is resulting in that erosion of self-preservation I spoke of earlier.

And certainly, if no where else in the world, the United States of America is notorious for using vast sums of money, much of it dirty, in order to pay off crooked politicians (lobbying by witch doctors) to achieve predator protection goals, in addition to manipulating our entire out of doors.

People actually are being taught in this country that potentially dangerous animals are “misunderstood”, that these animals have feelings and can think and react as humans do. Is this all that different than thinking lions are fighting back against those who are possessed of evil spirits? Those eager to swallow this poisoned bait, can really be no different than the local villagers in small remote areas of northern Mozambique who allow for the protection of lions by the will of witch doctors.

When the author wrote that the battle continues to wage between man and beast, “by turns enduring and resisting the vagaries of modernity” I believe him to be accurate but I doubt that we both agree as to the reasons. The author invokes a statement by Born Free author, George Adamson, who claimed that, “nature would strike back at civilization that intruded too deeply into wild places.” To use the author’s own words, man and beast will continue their battle due to the “vagaries of modernity” but not so much in the sense of man’s intrusion too deeply into nature. That battle will drag on and become more bloodily engaged so long as propaganda used by evil and sinister people for political gain erodes the sense of self-presentation. I do not believe that the beasts of the field have turned on humans because humans are treading too deeply into wild places. Wild animals are turning on humans because they have learned that humans are losing their natural fear through bad information perpetuated by bad people.

Our actions create an atmosphere inviting confrontations between man and beast and then, as we have learned from George Adamson, we blame man’s intrusion into wild places as the cause. Surely, man is regressing.

I was sent a photograph once showing the evolution progression of people from ape to man and then back to ape. Are we regressing by design? Are there those who want people to have their sense of self-preservation eroded? Like many of the “ignorant” residents of third-world countries, maybe more and more of us are being viewed as “useless eaters” and one way to get rid of those are to remove their sense of self-preservation. Beware the beast!



Bear Visits Florida Home for Christmas

‘Twas the day after Christmas and all through the house not a creature was stirring until a big black bear broke in.<<<Read More>>>


Be Careful Which Sandbar You Pick to Sun Bathe



In Russia Golden Eagle Attacks Deer

Lazovsky State Nature Reserve, in Russia, is where cameras captured the attack of a golden eagle on a small sika deer. This link will take you to a photo gallery.


Wolf Incident With Hunter in Washington State

Details are very sketchy at this time. One report from the Northwest Sportsman says that one female, uncollared, wolf was shot and killed in an area where wolves are protected under the Endangered Species Act. This incident took place in northwestern Okanogan County, according to the report. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are investigating and at this point in time are very close lipped.

There is discussion taking place at the Hunting-Washington message board. One participant says the incident took place in Hart’s Pass. Rumors are flying everywhere. I cannot substantiate any of the claims.

It appears, from one “reliable” source, that the person who shot the wolf, was a hunter, and reported the incident to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The turned the investigation over to USFWS because of jurisdiction.


List of Fatal Bear Attacks in North America – 1870s thru 2010s

I didn’t know this until someone emailed me the link. Wikipedia (yeah, I know) has a list of fatal bear attacks in North American dating from the 1870s through present. Here’s the link.

List of Fatal Bear Attacks


Wolves Gang Up Attack Black Bear in Wyoming

Wolves Attack Black BearWatch Video!

And what is the common talking points about this event occurring? Well, first we are incorrectly told wolves don’t attack bears. Secondly, we are told that wolves don’t have any effect on other wildlife.


Habituated Large Wild Predators and Liability

bearinfeederHumans share living quarters with wildlife and as a result there are inherent risks we assume. Therefore, no one or entity is liable should a bear, wolf or mountain lion decide to attack a human while lounging in a hammock in their back yard……right?

One would think. BUT……..

This morning I was reading another article about “nuisance” bears. It seems all summer long that’s all I’ve read are stories about bears and humans crossing paths, and the idiot responses and comments by wildlife officials as well as law enforcement.

In Michigan there seems to be a problem in the Iron River areas with what is being described as “multiple reports of nuisance bears” and “habituated, showing no fear of humans.” It appears from comments and actions that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) thinks people are feeding the bears, whether intentionally or by utilizing irresponsible habits, like leaving out garbage, that feeds the bears unintentionally.

Is there a liability issue here? I’m not lawyer. I’m just a writer asking questions and providing readers with some interesting case histories to ponder.

Michigan, like most states, has some kind of immunity law they believe protects them for actions or responsibilities undertaken as a function of their governmental entity and duties. I did some brief research into that and what I found, I saw no direct mention into anything concerning wild animals. I believe what I also found was that there are no laws restricting the feeding of wildlife in a person’s backyard….or front yard for that matter. There are many guidelines for feeding and baiting game animals.

What if people were intentionally feeding bears or some other large predator, and private property gets damaged or worse, personal injury or death? What if someone was feeding deer and the neighbor next door contracted Lyme disease? Is there liability? Somewhere?

In 2009, Charles E. Vandergaw, was charged with illegal feeding of bears at his remote cabin in Alaska. His cabin was named, “Bear Haven” and Vandergaw was featured in an Animal Planet show about his close encounters of the Alaska wild bears kind. According to a Daily Record article dated May 20, 2009, Alaska wildlife officials, “consider feeding bears a danger to humans.” What Vandergaw was charged with was improperly feeding the bears through a bear baiting permit he had obtained through the Alaska fish and game.

In October of 2007, Tom Holman fed bears in his backyard. Holman was a professional photographer. He lured bears in for the purpose of taking photographs and selling them. When I first reported on this event in 2007, information available said that “Tom lives in an area of Idaho where many neighbors like to feed wildlife. It’s not like he is the only one.” Was he targeted because he was making money? Did this somehow make him more liable?

But there is a different twist to this story. A grizzly bear, an endangered species in Idaho by federal standards, regularly came to Holman’s feeder. It was determined by the government officials that the bear was “habituated”, and as a result had become a danger to other people. The bear was killed.

Officials wanted to bring charges against Holman, not for feeding wildlife, as there are no laws prohibiting it in Idaho, but for violation of the Endangered Species Act……causing the avoidable death of a protected species. I do not believe any charges in that regard were filed but we see the beginnings of liability here.

Recently in Utah, the State Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling as it may pertain to liability and responsibility of protecting people from dangerous wild animals. Over time, this ruling may have sweeping consequences on how states and the courts view liability and whether or not people will be allowed to feed, intentionally or not, wildlife in their back yards, or be held responsible.

In 2007, Sam Ives was camping with family at Uinta National Forest. During the night, a grizzly hauled Sam Ives out of his tent, into the forest and killed him. A sad and unfortunate event. However, earlier that same day, the same grizzly bear attacked another man at the very same campsite. The courts not only ruled that the state didn’t do enough to protect Sam Ives from grizzly bears, their interpretation of Utah’s immunity laws leaves us wondering if other states will begin interpreting immunity laws, as they pertain to wildlife, in a similar manner.

In Francis v. State of Utah, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that wildlife are not a “natural condition of the land”, meaning the state’s immunity in this area does not include wildlife.

The differences that I can see in the issues in Michigan as opposed to those in Utah is that the bear attack on Sam Ives occurred on public land and in a designated campsite. But one does have to ask to what degree of liability is the state assuming when, as in Michigan, officials are doing what they can to provide public safety and protect people from being harmed by habituated bears. They are assuming responsibility for the problem. Will that make them subject to lawsuits, especially if a court rules on immunity as was done in Utah? In addition, what amount of responsibility is then put on the person(s) that deliberately feed wildlife?

So, long as there are greed and lawyers, lawsuits will be forthcoming; the result being the implementation of more and more laws prohibiting the feeding of any wildlife, including birds. This may appear all well and good, but this action will do little for the results of too many bears or large predators and/or not enough natural food to go around.

Who becomes liable for that action?


As Maine Prepares for “Black Bear Bingo”

With a little help from my friends, I have brought readers hours of entertainment playing “Coyote Bingo“. Coyote Bingo became so popular that within only a matter of days from the original release of the game, a modified First Edition was created. (Note: Coyote Bingo can also be used for wolves and in some cases just use it for your favorite predator.)

And, just the other night, I introduced readers to a brand new game of “Barack’s Bullshit Bingo.” This was made to use throughout the remaining time President Barack Obama is in office. Whenever he delivers a speech, whip out your Barack’s Bullshit Bingo card and play along. Hours of excitement can be had by all.

As a special treat for readers of this website, you are about to be given a glimpse into the behind the scenes efforts and what helps the developers of the various bingo games to come up with phrases to place in each bingo square.

Soon, Maine will be in the throes of yet another effort by perverted, mentally disturbed environmentalists who want to end bear hunting and trapping in the Pine Tree State. The cheaters and liars have come up with a name for themselves; Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting. Isn’t that sweet.

During this campaign, citizens of the state will hear some of the most profound comments and statements about bears. These statements, more often that not originate as lies and then get passed on by ignorance. An example of this could be seen this morning on Fox and Friends.

The three anchors today were Steve, Ainsley, and Brian. A video clip was shown of a small bear (I couldn’t locate the video) found in the heart of a downtown area and one of the anchors (Ainsley?) asked why the bear was there. It was then that Steve and Brian in their by-design, indoctrinated ignorance answered, because people keep building condos! Brilliant.

To come up with box fillers for select bingo games, comments, all of which are either lies or ignorance, are collected and the best ones used.

In collecting comments for Bear Bingo, we have come up with a classic; one sure to please and not to tease.

According to the Bangor Daily News, a bear was spotted “near” a school in Kennebunk, Maine. The principal kept the kids inside for recess. However, the bingo making classic comment came from the local yokel from the police department. In attempting to explain why this one bear and a second were spotted in the same area, the police Lieutenant, after discounting rabies, said……, no, wait for it (I’ve always want to use that somewhere) He said, “THEY JUST GOT TURNED AROUND.”

That might make it to the center square!



Wolf Attacks Retired Kazakh Police Officer

wolfviciousTo some living in denial, wolves don’t attack people, unless of course they have contracted rabies…..from man non doubt. However, this story, which must not be true to those in denial, tells of a retired policeman living in Kazakhstan who was attacked from behind by a wolf while the man was looking over his car. He eventually fought off the wolf with his bear hands and strangled the animal; something Dr. Valerius Geist has always reported that could be done by a strong enough person.

I would like to draw readers attention to another report from the BBC of this same incident. I suppose searching for an explanation, the author writes:

Elders are surprised at the attack on a human, but recall that local huntsman Aldaberdy Akshabayev has stopped his regular wolf culls since the council cut off funding. Mangistau region police warn that the wolves are now becoming bolder as they compete for food.

Bingo! Too many wolves. Not enough food. Trouble! Read about this in Dr. Geist’s seven steps before wolves will attack a human.