October 19, 2018

Florida Wildlife Commission Doles Out Tax Dollars to Support Fascist Town Governments

Disguised as a program to promote the coexistence of over-protected black bears and humans, the Florida Wildlife Commission is doling out taxpayers’ dollars to communities that mandate people’s trash must be secured from bears.

According to The Outdoor Wire, one community with such a mandate, Apopka, and obviously no way to pay for their fascist mandate, is getting $85,000 from taxpayers who did not ask that the city force residents of their city to secure their garbage. In turn, all taxpayers are forced to pay for the fascist mandate. The money will be used to buy bear-proof garbage cans. I say if the town government, elected by the people of Apopka, want to mandate bear-proof garbage cans then those fascists should pay for the cans and not force the rest of us who had no say in the matter to pony-up money.

This is typical action by the governments in forcing the servitude to pay for their pet projects. Like with wolves, grizzlies, and all other “protected” wildlife species, governments mandate protection and then force the masses to pay for it. You just got to love this democratic fascism that ignorant progressives have brought us to.

Yeah, yeah, I know. All you progressives will say this is a small price to pay to protect bears…yada, yada, yada. But, clueless to most, this isn’t really about protecting the bears now is it?

LOVING YOUR SERVITUDE????

Share

Maine’s Contortionist, Human-Reasoning Black Bears

Why? For years I just keep asking myself why it is that bear biologists, as a whole,  insist on protecting the image of a large predator that is capable of ripping you and me to shreds. It just never ends. It’s a giant echo chamber where all you hear is that bears are more scared of you and they rarely bother people. Today, here’s a new false adage to file into your list of inane conversation pieces.

“We have bears that will basically do anything they can, turn themselves inside out, to get away from a human.”

A hungry, angry or threatened bear will also run you down and rip you to shreds under the right conditions. Are we then supposed to approach every bear as though that bear will “turn themselves inside out” to run the other way not satisfying his hunger pains, or having a “time out” to cool his jets for a bit?

Making a statement that bears rarely attack people is not only a bit dishonest but is highly value rated by the individual making the statement or is politically charged by animal protection nuts who rationalize bear behavior to that of humans. It’s much the same as stating that plane crashes are rare. However, when they do happen the event itself (I’m guessing) is highly unpleasant – much the same as being mauled to pieces by a pissed off bear.

The truth is we never know the mindset of a bear when we see one. Yes, it’s “rare” that that bear will turn and eat you up, but, as with any animal, they are unpredictable. Driven by hunger, there is no telling what a bear or any large predator will do. An angry or threatened bear is much the same and we have little knowledge of what can piss off a bear.

A bear does not reason, contrary to what misguided animal perverts might choose to believe. They only act and react on instinct. When you enter bear country, it’s a pretty good idea to have a plan of what it is you are supposed to do when you encounter a bear that’s NOT “turning themselves inside out” to get away. Don’t assume anything.

To a bear, human flesh tastes “just like chicken.”

 

Share

Black Bears, Mange, Climate Change Nonsense, Emotional Ignorance

In a report filed in the Washington Post and reprinted in the Bangor Daily News, bears in Pennsylvania, along with neighboring states of New York, West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, are suffering from mange.

The article states that Pennsylvania, “seems to be the epicenter of an outbreak that scientists don’t fully understand.” Mange has been a problem since the 1990s.

And because biologists “don’t fully understand” the reason for the outbreak, they make sure they insert their favorite “go to” excuse of Climate Change.

When these clowns blame climate change, we know that what they are referring to is a warming of the climate that brings events that scientists “don’t fully understand.” If this was true, then it seems feasible that black bears living in the southern states would be suffering from mange on a regular basis, but that evidently is not the case. But it’s easier to blame Climate Change.

While it might not be explained how the bears contracted this kind of unusual for bears mange, might it be possible that it is spreading from the “epicenter” at quite an alarming rate, or so it appears, because of a large population of bears (20,000) and one that is “a record number for the state.” Mange is spread through contact and with increased populations of bears the chances of contact with other bears increases. Makes sense.

If 20,000 bears is a record number, and Pennsylvania has a bear hunting season, then it certainly appears that despite the hunting the population continues to grow. Either Pennsylvania is deliberately attempting to grow the bear population or bear hunting alone doesn’t seem to be able to keep the population in check or to reduce the population. Many other states are suffering the same dilemma – too many bears and no way of controlling the populations. What waits on the horizon for all these states with black bears?

Most people don’t have knowledge of real wildlife science and depend on their favorite form of Scientism to give them the fabricated talking points that make them feel like good pals with animals such as bears. They don’t want to believe that bears, or any other animal, suffers when populations get too large. Instead, they want to just blame the existence of men and of course all forms of hunting.

In a recent Letter to the Editor of a Maine newspaper, one such person blames the continued growth in Maine’s black bear population on hunters being allowed to hunt over bait. Pennsylvania does NOT allow hunting bears over bait and yet their bear population continues to grow at about the same rate as Maine.

It can be argued forever whether or not artificially feeding bears effects the rate of reproduction. But there are some facts that should be looked at but seldom are when emotional clap-trap Scientism is the driving force behind the obvious hatred toward hunting and hunters.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has stated repeatedly that when natural food is readily available, hunters have a very difficult time to successfully lure a bear to a bait station. Bears much prefer their natural food over man-made bait.

Those opposed to hunting, and more specifically bear baiting, claim that baiting bears causes the increase in reproductivity of black bears. There are far too many influencers on bears that any study can definitively say more food, or baiting bears causes an increase in population.

But even if it was an accepted fact, at what real impact does a bear baiting season have on population growth?

Maine has an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 black bears. According to MDIFW’s bear harvest report for 2016, 2,859 bears were taken during the entire hunting and trapping seasons. Of those 2,859 harvested bears, 1,936 were taken over bait. It can be safely stated that all of Maine’s 35,000 bears don’t live adjacent to the handful of bait stations hunters employ.

The overall success rate of harvesting a bear in Maine runs about 25%. We could play around with some math here but the bottom line appears to be that even with the baiting, bears being affected, if at all, by bait is but a drop in the bucket compared to the overall population of bears in the state of Maine. Consequently, any change in reproductive rates would certainly appear to be insignificant.

For Maine residents, including the ones making claims that baiting is the driving force behind an ever-growing bear population, the question of concern should be, will Maine bears begin suffering from mange? And if so, what is the plan of attack should it strike?

The trend in this country today is disturbing from a wildlife management perspective. More and more people are perversely in love with all animals and want them all protected. To go along with this unnatural love affair with animals and the brainwashing of our children in schools and in the media, there are fewer and fewer hunters every year. This combination spells disaster in wildlife management. With little or no tools available for wildlife population control and management, our forests and fields will become chaotic “natural balance” as the Environmentalists scream for. With that chaotic approach, we can expect continued “unusual” outbreaks of life-destroying diseases which is how Mother Nature deals with it.

It appears the only way we can learn the truth is to let it happen and clean up the mess later.

Share

Failing to “Look Big” Florida Man Mauled By Bear

It was a very unfortunate event. A Florida man, stepping outside his home to let his dog out, was attacked and mauled by a black bear. The resulting attack left him with 41 stitches on his face.

Those “experts” who have never seen a bear, let alone experienced an attack, tell everyone that when a bear attacks you need to “look big” and “make a lot of noise.” Evidently, this man didn’t have time to do any of that.

They will also tell you that a bear is more afraid of you than you are of it and that attacks are rare. Polar bear attacks are rare in Florida too, but if the state had them, thousands of them, attacks wouldn’t be so rare. Is that so difficult a concept to understand?

Evidently, it is.

Share

Not Knowing What’s Science and What’s Scientism

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine has placed a link to what they call “science” to prove – “this is the science proving” – that baiting bears changes the dynamics of the animals and the surrounding forests, where bears “could” cause damage to plants.

First off, the fake “study” is not science. It is the result of Scientism and a couple of students who set out to discredit in any way they could, hunting and in particular hunting bear using bait as one of the tools to accomplish the task. In other words, this is very typical of outcome based “scientific research.”

Scientism is nothing more than what some of us have come to recognize as “what scientists say and do.” It is also a dangerous and unrestrained credence of the power and authority realized from the manipulated field of science. This study is a fine example of how the scientific process is foregone and replaced with someone’s belief system because there is power in the publication of “studies.”

The scientific process is almost never followed anymore, due to a myriad of reasons, money being one of them along with political idealism and personal agendas.

Secondly, this “study” takes place within a national park in Canada, where black bears are protected. Without having data at my disposal, an intelligent supposition would be that in a park where black bears are protected, depending upon the cycle the bears were going through during the study period, there are probably too many bears in the park. Those dynamics differ greatly from areas where bears a responsibly managed and kept in check to meet management goals and social tolerances.

The study references bear baiting stations adjacent to the park placed there by hunters. Not all hunters are stupid and thus they realize that with too many bears in the park, perhaps a good place to set up a bait station and a tree stand would be adjacent to the park. Does this tactic actually result in increasing the odds of bagging a bear? I dunno. Neither do the researchers.

The short of all this is that the “scientists” chose a location for their study that is far from being typical of the vast forests that make up Canada and parts of the U.S. So, the dynamics of bears and their habitat is not what one might expect to find in the majority of the rest of the world. Observations might prove interesting but for what purpose other than political?

So, what good then is the study? I alluded to that above. And when the study was all said and done, the authors state that with hunters having baiting stations adjacent to the park, bears “could” cause some damage to the trees and vegetation. I wonder if this “could” happen even if the bait stations weren’t there. Did the “scientists” set up a comparative study area outside of the park, in a location more typical of the forests?

The purpose of the study, more than likely, has been exemplified as we see an animal rights, environmental group emotionally grasping at anything, even when it doesn’t even closely resemble the scientific process, to promote their totalitarian agendas aimed at ending a lifestyle they don’t agree with.

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine, in their posting (on Facebook?) states that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t consider this dynamic change possible. Actually, I’ve never heard or read anywhere that MDIFW doesn’t believe that baiting bear changes the dynamics of the forest in places where bear are being baited. It doesn’t take a science degree to understand that any and all “changes” within a forest ecosystem can and will have an effect on the dynamics between animal and ecosystem. It then is left to a person’s, or a group of person’s, perspective on what they want to see or have before them.

I think that it is wrong to make a statement about MDIFW of this kind. MDIFW has made it perfectly clear from the beginning that they would like to continue with baiting bear as a tool to help keep the growth of black bears in check in order to assume responsible management of a healthy bear population. Should numbers of bears drop to management’s desired levels, I’m quite certain that MDIFW would cease bear baiting.

But, within this entire debate, both sides cherry-picking convenient products of Scientism to bolster their arguments, in the grand scheme of things, there is so little baiting going on anywhere that it is akin to somebody dumping a cup of coffee into Sebago Lake (47.68 sq. miles) and declaring that the lake dynamics have changed and thus the lake has gone to hell.

Share

Alaska Mountain Runner Fails to “Look Big”

Being reported from Alaska, a 16-year-old boy, a participant in a mountain climb running race, texted his mother about half way through the race saying he was being chased by a black bear. His dead body was latter found off the trail.

Share

If The Shoe Fits….

At first glance, I just assumed that some worthless politician must have been trying to figure out why the chicken crossed the road, then I realized I was seriously demeaning that poor bear.

By the looks of things this particular bear must not be struggling to find food, or this is what he kept inside of him during hibernation.

Share

Bear Visits Home: Obviously The Woman Failed to “Look Big”

“A resident of Stagecoach Road in Avon, Connecticut, received an unexpected visitor last week.

A black bear showed up on the woman’s back deck Wednesday morning while the homeowner was making brownies.

The woman said the bear spent about half an hour on the deck, standing up and putting its paws up on the glass sliding door leading to the kitchen.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Ohio’s Black Bears

We know that since forever, man has been blamed for everything. This action is akin to how, along with the evil man, a fabricated “Global Warming” is the convenient excuse or blame for everything and anything. Often – very often – almost always – loss of habitat is the excuse of why game and/or wildlife managers can’t do their jobs.

So, if loss of habitat was one of the contributing factors in why Ohio lost its black bear population, as is stated, then the return of the bear must be attributed to the efforts of hunters and “regulated” hunting. For surely, according to the hateful and blind, once habitat is lost there is no returning of it – well, of course unless returning habitat fits the bill of convenience in the ongoing exemplification of Romance Biology, Voodoo Science and overall hatred toward man.

ohiobear

astabulacountyohio

Share

Maine Researchers Trap “Chocolate” Bear

The Bangor Daily News has a story of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) capturing of a “brown-phase” black bear, something that is a rare treat in the Eastern United States.

This should be a good opportunity for the idiots who obsess on stopping man from utilization of the resources and to end bear hunting and trapping, and basically all forms of hunting and fishing. If we were to employ their twisted logic then they are going to be saying that this unusual “chocolate” brown black bear became this way from eating junk food used for bait by the bear hunters – probably chocolate bars.

Also, the MDIFW says there has been quite a few more bears trapped this spring during the bear trapping phase of the MDIFW study. Biologists say it’s because of a lack of natural food due to drought. Those who walk on their brains will say this is because bears have been trained to find their food resource at bait sites put out by bear hunters. What else?

And lastly, researchers say they have trapped more female bears this year than usual. Mental midgets that have no life will say this also is the result of baiting and trapping bears. How that can be could be a bit of a mystery but let me take a stab at it. They might say that bear baiting causes a spike in the number of female bears vs. male bears. They might say that because we now have an imbalance of female bears over male bears due to baiting, and that bears are too stupid to remember how to forage away from bait sites, because male bears are even dumber than female bears, all that’s left are female bears, some of which have turned brown by eating chocolate left behind by bear baiting.

Or something.

Or, these brainless clowns, if they were to see a “brown-phase” black bear, perhaps this is what they see:

BrownPhasedObama

And because they are too stupid to get it, I am now a racist in their eyes.

Happy Bear Hunting!

 

Share