April 25, 2019

No Need to Publish Letters About Publishing Photos of Dead Deer

proctologist

Warning! The photo to the left can be viewed as offensive and an influence to your moral compass. To continue reading, first, grow up.

This morning my inbox contained a link to a Letter to the Editor published in a Maine newspaper from someone that I believe is a faculty member at Thomas College. The letter was aimed at chastising the editorial staff of the paper for printing photographs of dead deer in their newspaper, stating that they, “find it very disturbing to open the paper and find pictures of slaughtered animals and don’t understand why those of us who have moral objections to hunting need to be involuntarily exposed to these pictures.”

One cannot argue that this person, at least states, that they find photographs of dead deer – and I would presume the same for all dead animals – bothersome and has difficulty viewing them. At same time, argument can reasonably be made that this person, if they are a college professor at a Maine college, lives in a state where deer hunting has, for many decades, been a rite of passage for residents and publishing photos of  “dead deer” in local newspapers is part of that rite of passage. We are in a constant state of war. The newspapers always contain images of war and the collateral damage of war. I wonder if this same person has the same moral objections to viewing dead bodies of men and women?

The bigger picture is what is most disturbing. We now live in a society in which the mindset is one of entitlement, combined with censorship (political correctness), and the selfish desire to force all others to one’s own way of thinking. This comes because respect and an understanding and appreciation of the interests of other people, has gone missing – more than likely by design.

We can also see an extreme case of this in the aftermath of another national “selection” for a new president. I recall when Barack Obama was “selected” as president, the false left was happy while the false right lamented the thought of this person being president of the United States for 4 or 8 years. With the tide changing, the false right is happy and the false left is struggling to get over it and in some cases resorting to violence to protest what appears to be something they know little about. But I’ll save that discussion for another day.

Back to the dead deer photos. If a newspaper caved to the whims of every unstable individual, who thinks of themselves as the author of all things “moral” and stopped publishing photos they believed to be of the interest of the majority of their readers, the paper would be void of all photos, for surely with little effort, an irrational weak person can find any photo disturbing and would have moral objections to what they represent while claiming involuntary subjection to viewing the pictures. How silly and childish!

I Corinthians 13:11 reads, When I was a child, I spake as a child: I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.Once it was thought, without much  discussion, that a person who held a position as a staff member of a college, had grown up and put away childish things. Evidently not.

Perhaps the author’s real intent was to offer disparagement toward the event of hunting and those that participate in it. A grown up would simply state such a position and offer rational discourse in support of their position, rather than bang their heads on the table, in a display of childish behavior, demanding the newspaper take away pictures and protect her from being “subjected” to what she considers the immoralities of others. Unfortunately, that grown-up behavior seems to be in short supply as any sane person can realize by simply opening their eyes.

I don’t read newspapers any longer because, as a grown man, I understand that its content is propaganda and full of things that are offensive and certainly what I would classify as immoral. Should I choose to open one up, I fully expect to find as I describe. The same adult behavior would prevent me from banging my head demanding my way at the expense of all others. I can only alter my own behavior as has always been the same way of existing in a state of sanity.

I doubt that the newspapers are going to alter what they publish because one reader has been offended…or has a related mission to end hunting. Such actions prove that insanity runs rampant throughout our perverted society.

Share

A Revelation of Really Ignorant Newspaper Editorial Boards

Still whining like spoiled brat children, the Editorial Board of the Portland Press Herald Newspaper continues to moan about how unfair it was that members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the Maine Warden Service (MWS) participated in the recent anti human, bear referendum as a means of providing facts and data about what bear management was like. They lost and so they want to change the rules. What else is knew. God forbid that we should have informed voters.

Aside from the fact that the written text of the editorial makes little sense, on the one hand complains that it wasn’t right for employees to do this while in the next breath vows that little should be done to stop this unfair, in their eyes, practice. Fake compromise.

Utilizing the old and worn out technique of “comparison” shopping, the paper first attempts to equate the participation of state employees – in uniform…gasp – to pornography. If you call them out on it they will simply say they were making a point that a judge, who has nothing to do with the bear referendum, claimed they would recognize pornography when they saw it. Consider that for a moment. This reveals a poor judge and one that seems to be part of a promotion campaign by the Press Herald as being a good thing that a judge administers justice, via the judicial branch, by his or her perception of what should and shouldn’t be, based on their own moral standards.

Whether it is right or wrong, in your opinion, that the Editorial Board invoked the comparison of pornography, matters very little because the words are written and the damage done. The state of Maine now employees pornographic professionals according to the Portland Press Herald.

Equating the recognition of pornography by a judge in 1964 to actions by members of the MDIFW and MWS to provide facts about bear management, the Board says that they see no difference in that any judge should be able to see the two issues as the same.

We feel the same way about the involvement of state agencies and their employees in political campaigns. Sometimes it doesn’t bother us; other times it does. When does it go too far? It’s hard to know exactly where to draw the line, but we know it when we see it.

Evidently the Editorial Board has recognized pornographic equivalencies between one judge’s moral or immoral perception of pornography and one judge’s interpretation of Maine law that it is not illegal for the MDIFW to do what it did during this bear referendum. Voters need to be informed but those promoting the referendum wanted to censor MDFIW and MWS because the facts didn’t agree with their propaganda.

Other than having their own media platform to preach from, what is it the Editorial Board wants? I think they want their cake and eat it too.

We think officials should give their expert opinion and individuals should exercise their free speech rights. But as Justice Stewart said, this was not that – or at least it didn’t look like that.

What we saw appeared to be the enormous power of state government wielded against a group of citizens who were calling for a change in state law.

This is nothing but sour grapes from a bunch of misinformed and not informed losers who want to be able to exercise their rights so long as they can win with them. If they can’t, then they want to change the rules.

Surely if the Department of Environmental Protection was challenged through referendum by an out of state group with no interest in Maine government affairs, voters would want to know facts about the issue and whether or not the current administration supports or opposes the effort and why.

I see it as typical childish behavior, the result of not getting your way. It’s also irresponsible and unprofessional to attempt to smear the reputations of the MDIFW and the MWS by equating their activities to that of the promoters of pornography. Then, after accomplishing what they really set out to do, they attempted to paint themselves as some sort of reasonable and moderate compromisers; above the common fray.

But because what they did was so far from the norm, we think the Legislature should not go too far in its reaction. Just as we don’t want to see state employees getting too involved in political campaigns, we also don’t want them to be barred from participating. There is room for a happy medium, and the fact that this has not been a problem in the past should remind people that it might not need such a stringent solution.

The real issue here is that animal rights and environmental left-wing perverts lost their attempt to destroy all things normal. This began to reveal itself when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sued the state in the middle of the campaign in order to stop MDIFW and the MWS from doing what they should have been doing – educating the public.

Some attempted to hide behind the issue of transparency in costs to the state but that proved itself to not be the driving force in the lawsuit, nor is it the driving force behind efforts such as the Press Herald smearing the MDIFW and MWS. They don’t want transparency. They want an end to hunting, trapping and fishing. They will persist until they get it. After all, if a brat bangs his head on the floor until blood is drawn, any parent will give in.

Share

Why Newspapers Can’t Be Relied on as Intelligent, Factual Source of Information

DontUnderstandIt began this way. On April 4, 2014, Pulse published an article by Jim Lundstrum called, “Wolves at the Door.” That same day Jim Beers, a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper with a comment to make about the substance of the article, “Wolves at the Door.”

The entire back and forth between Mr. Beers and the newspaper editor would make a fantastic comedic routine for any pair of standup comics. The problem is, this actually really happened. Beers introduces the act this way:

Talking to a (WI) Newspaper about Wolves

The following interchange followed a Letter to an Editor regarding an article about wolves recently arriving in his popular and populous NE Wisconsin County, where one would (mistakenly evidently) assume a modicum of familiarity with wolves. It is enlightening for anyone dealing with wolves and the media. I say this not to impugn my skill or this editor’s response, but only to present this rare glimpse of what often is the case when we assume we are having a conversation that is merely gibberish, for whatever reason, to a listener. Jim

“Are you Druids?

When you quote a respected warden regarding wolves in Wolves at the Door, to wit “It comes back to, what can the landscape tolerate” you are simply using your human-owned newspaper to promulgate a secular animal rights’ belief to justify government force to oppress rural people with dangerous and deadly urban fantasies.

To paraphrase the good warden, wolf presence and tolerance “comes back to what those being forced to live with them can tolerate.” It is really quite simple and quite American, I might add.

Jim Beers
Eagan, MN
4 April 2014”

The editor of the newspaper writes back to Beers and says:

“I have no idea what you are implying. I can’t run a letter that makes no sense.”

Perhaps a bit frustrated or something more, Jim Beers makes another attempt at making his point:

I imply that you present the matter of the presence and abundance of wolves as only limited by what “the landscape” can tolerate.

What you publish is literally that human objections and perceived harm to human values are of no importance. In other words, humans and their objections are of less importance than the amount of food and surface conditions wolves encounter.

This philosophical difference supports the value difference between us that establishes people like myself believing that the threats and harms from diseases, dog loss, livestock loss, game reduction and human safety concerns caused by wolves are not justifiable and others like Druids (?) or nature worshippers that believe that human enterprise and society like the rest of “the landscape” must and should adjust to whatever wolves cause much like, for example, what is happening to the Minnesota moose, European sheep flocks and The Northern Yellowstone elk herd thanks to wolves placed and protected by the force of government fiat.

I assume the warden’s job security is tied to such a statement and that your paper would only engender strong reactions from readers that obviously are not hosting many or any wolves to date and like other public factions from urban donors and environmental activists to bureaucrats and politicians whose families and livelihoods remain unaffected by what we are talking about here. It might be better stated (though more words) as:

When you report that a Wisconsin warden believes that the presence and abundance of wolves is limited only by “what can the landscape tolerate” you and he are legitimizing an environmental falsehood that dates back to ancient pagan nature worship. This justification for forcing wolves and their continued presence by government fiat on local communities where residents strongly object to them is greatly flawed because it treats human concerns as equal to or lesser than food availability and other survival conditions that affect wolves. Human concerns about wolves in settled landscapes are always superior to other factors. These concerns include but are not limited to, diseases and infections, livestock losses, dog losses, game herd reductions and most important the human safety of those forced to “live with wolves”.

To paraphrase the warden, wolf presence and abundance is ultimately limited only by “what those being forced to live with them will tolerate.”

It is really quite simple, quite sensible, and it reflects American traditional cultural values I might add.

To which the editor once again responded”

“Sorry. I still don’t get it.”

Share

Protecting the Fish and Game Biologist Brotherhood

Once again, Outcome Based Education, political bias and perpetuated myths are on display in Maine. A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist and a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologist, says that politicians are the cause of Maine’s depleted(ing) deer herd, not coyotes.

Politicians are to blame for many things and readers know I would be the last in line to stand up for one unless I knew them personally and could trust them. As far as whether politicians are the sole blame for Maine’s vanishing deer herd, I don’t think, as much as I would like to, I could put all the blame on them.

The author was a wildlife biologist and worked for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), so I doubt he would dare place any of the blame for a terrible deer management execution on his “brotherhood” at MDIFW.

Getting beyond the political bias and nonsense, let’s examine a few things that the retired biologist had to say.

Since the early 1900s, expensive and barbaric coyote bounties have failed miserably in western states, but that knowledge carries no weight in Augusta.

History is full of accounts of how “barbaric bounties” very effectively controlled predator populations. Maybe the author needed to rewind his history clock a few more years to discover that….or maybe the seeming failure was intentional.

One has to simply reread many of the journals and accounts from years ago in the West to learn what actually happened. A favorite account of mine is that of C. Gordon Hewitt.

It always amazes me how that the evils of hunting swing in both directions, when convenient. While wolves and coyotes were virtually wiped out in the West as the settlers moved in, hunters were blamed. When there is talk of killing predators, such as coyotes and wolves, those same people who blamed the destruction of coyotes and wolves on hunters, swing the door in the other direction and tell us as did the opinion piece in question:

It seems counterintuitive, but the war on coyotes has actually increased their numbers and breeding range. The Colorado Division of Wildlife reports that coyotes are more numerous today than when the state was first settled by trappers. Colorado and other western states no longer waste taxpayer money on futile coyote control programs.

There exists no scientific evidence that killing coyotes causes them to automatically breed more of themselves. There are just too many factors that come into play when examining reproductive habits of any wild animal. And is the author of this opinion piece actually suggesting here that all those coyotes now in Colorado are solely to blame on hunters and trappers? Once again, a reading and studying of the history of settling the West shows that aside from certain pockets, this nirvana of the West was not so Disneyesque as many would like to believe. Man’s expansion created a vast habitat to support coyotes and all other wildlife. In time, the implementation of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation allowed for the growth and health of our wildlife systems.

The retired biologist intimates that Maine plans to implement a one year program to kill coyotes, saying it wouldn’t be effective. Agreed, and I know of no honest person who has indicated that it would. I happen to know explicitly that both MDIFW Commissioner Woodcock and Governor LePage have been told and I believe understand that predator control is an ongoing part of wildlife management and this should have been taking place years ago. The MDIFW fell flat on their faces in this regard.

The article shows us the author’s real colors when he begins his rant about how the Maine politicians failed because they did not steal land rights away from American taxpayers. The crying and gnashing of teeth is about the State Legislature failing to tell landowners they can’t use the resources on their own land; an unconstitutional land grab straight from the pages of the United Nations Agenda 21 program, whose goal it is to take all land and resources worldwide and forbid you and I from owning or having access to any of it, saving it instead for them. I’m all for protecting our wildlife, but never at the expense of man’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are better ways than forceful takeovers.

We are then treated to what appears to be an expert on the deer management in Minnesota and Michigan stating:

If you remain unconvinced that lack of winter shelter is the primary reason northern Maine supports few deer, please consider this: Minnesota and Michigan deer herds are much healthier than Maine’s. Minnesota and Michigan winters are as difficult as Maine’s. Deer in both of those states must also avoid being eaten by coyotes and wolves.

So the logical question LePage, Woodcock, Martin and deer hunters should ask is this: What are Minnesota and Michigan doing differently to maintain healthy deer populations? The answer: Both states prioritize protecting deer wintering areas through land purchases, conservation easements and regulating excessive timber harvests.

The proof is in the pudding they say, and with the help of a reader, we have been able to provide a couple of graphs that show that since the late 1990s and early 2000s, both Minnesota and Michigan have seriously reduced deer harvest numbers, dropping over 30% and more.

You don’t suppose that one of the reasons that Minnesota and Michigan have a declining harvest of deer, an indication of a declining deer population, has anything at all to do with the years of over protecting predators and now the results of that over protection are showing up? In addition, I have yet to get anyone that pretends to have all the answers explain to me why, if there are no more deer wintering areas left in Maine to support more deer, the ones we have are not being used?

It appears that the basis for the author’s opinion piece in the paper is mostly wrapped around his dislike of Gov. LePage and his republican administration, while at the same time blaming politicians in general for a deer demise, the fate of which was left in the hands of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a department that the biologist was an employee of. Surely we couldn’t expect someone to point a finger at their brotherhood of hoodwinked biologists….or even perhaps at themselves.

Share