June 19, 2018

The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!

Share

OPINION: MNRF takes the road of junk science to forward their agenda

In my younger years growing up in Sundridge, the moose season fell on every even year and lasted a week. You bought your moose license and shot a MOOSE. There were plenty of moose and trappers harvested wolves and hunters harvested spring bears and laws were based on science and time-proven management practices. During this time the powers that be were the Ontario Lands and Forests, later changed to Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Recently renamed Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.  Much has changed over the past two decades within what I once considered Ontario`s flagship ministry, for without our rich resources what does Ontario have to offer?

I have been deeply concerned about the direction this ministry has been travelling for some years now as laws are now being based on emotion and driven by special interest and protectionist lobby groups.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Google Alert! Gray Wolf

*Editor’s Note* – Mr. Beers, upon examination of a “Google Alert,” of which I have posted below, responds to the material contained within the alert.

Google Alert! Gray Wolf – by James Beers

“Gag me with a spoon”, I apologize (not really) for such an un-scientific observation about such an important subject in the “news” item below..

Note that this is a public relations piece from an “Endangered Wolf Center” and the St. Louis TV station eager for such a cutesy-tootsy evening news item.

  1. Note the Facebook/Google “Alert” below that I have enlarged where appropriate and remember the “Center” colluded in this bit of tripe:

–          “Mexican Gray Wolf species”; considering this comes from a “scientific”  Center” and “scientists” that collect semen, freeze embryos and create a “world’s first” phenomenon ask yourself, “is a Mexican wolf” a “gray wolf?”  “Is a ‘Mexican’ ‘gray’ wolf a ‘species’?”  The inherent and confusing faux wolf biology is sticking its ugly head out once again.

–          “The world’s first Mexican Wolf pup that was recently born from artificially inseminated frozen embryo here in St. Louis.”  Is it really stunning that you can birth such animals this way?  This has been done for decades with livestock and domestic dogs that coincidentally can breed with these wolves and create viable offspring (does that make them the same species or what?)  Billing this as a “World’s First” reminds me of the Cubs/Pirates game I watched last night.  The Pirates were down by 10 runs in the 8th and brought in a rookie to pitch in his “first” Major League game.  He is a big guy and pitched well but the Pittsburgh announcers had a ball joking about his being “the first native-born Lithuanian to play in the majors” and about his name “Neveraskous” (pronounced by them as “Never ask us”)  Actually, I think Neveraskous was a true big deal and reading this tripe from St. Louis is little more than propaganda.

–          “Endangered breed” is mentioned twice.  So a “breed” is like a basset hound or rat terrier, therefore a wolf is like …?  Does the Endangered Species Act cover “breeds”?  Should the ESA be rebranded as the Endangered Breed Act?  Will the radical enviros and self-serving bureaucrats please notify the bleeding heart pols in Washington so that the “breed” is covered?

–         Consulting the “San Francisco Chronicle” about articles like this  is like consulting Pravda on forecasting the stock market or the Kampala Times about the latest surgical techniques for hip implants.

  1. I should get paid for watching these videos of earnest young women “ooohhing” and “aaahing” in T shirts and/or government uniforms while petting baby wolves while they weave their myths and curses like the witches in Macbeth.

–          “Revered”; wolves are to be “revered”?  Are you kidding me and the rest of the Nation or do you, in your elementary paganism of animal/environment worship, really believe that?

–          You blithely assure us about how those “cute” puppies are “dewormed”, “treated for fleas and ticks” and otherwise treated like offspring of last year’s AKC’s Westminster Dog Show and then instruct the rest of us about how the un-wormed, un-flea/tick-medicated, rabies-susceptible, vectors of over 35 diseases and infections are to be “revered” when we see them?  Are we to get on our knees, put our head between our knees and extend our arms and put our hands on the ground when they come into our yard or when they investigate the school bus stop when the kids are there or when they are killing sheep. Calves, foals, big game wildlife or our dogs?  Note to all you urban teachers putting this dangerous nonsense in your little munchkin’s heads, you will have much to answer for one day when you inevitably awake to the true (nor relative) value of human life that you are so blithely equating to dangerous and deadly predators you are teaching your charges to “revere”.

This “ALERT” and propaganda really expose the faux propaganda of the “science” and government action underpinning the ESA.  This “science” is no more than lies used in the way Hitler defined the “Big Lie” in Mein Kampf when he mentioned a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

To change what is happening, you have to disprove the “science”, take away the financial/political influence if rich NGO’s, remove self-serving bureaucrats, turn off these teachers, get the “truth” out and then convince the politicians hiding under their desks to do the right thing.  No problem.  What do you say President Trump?

Jim Beers

Share

Lupus Mathematica

Observe! What you see is nothing but a plain, ordinary, black, top hat. Look inside! Nothing in it. I’m going to wave my magical wand and a wolf puppy will pop out of my hat. Or some such nonsense. Here’s an example of voodoo Lupus Mathematica when it comes to an all out effort to protect the disease-carrying varmints – regardless of the cost to humans.

The other day I read in a few Online news accounts where one headline read: “Panel Rejects Tripling Wolf Harvest Near Yellowstone.” (emphasis added) What a frightening proposition that anyone would even suggest the idea of needlessly slaughtering three times the number of wolves that are already taken by hunters and government agents. Isn’t that the reaction sought by the media? Did you swallow the bait?

“OMG! I heard that Montana has at least 700 or 800 wolves and that last year evil, mentally ill, hunters and government agents killed 200 wolves. OMG! If Montana had planned to triple the wolf harvest…OMG! That’s over 600 wolves!” as some ignorant environmentalist would exclaim. Isn’t that the reaction sought by the media?

However, that’s not true but it’s how people emotionally react and part of that training comes from irresponsible headlines that read that Montana decides not to TRIPLE the wolf harvest – Oh, did anybody seriously mention that harvest was only NEAR Yellowstone? In an area with more than enough wolves to go around?

A more honest approach to this non issue news story would be to first present how many wolves government officials allowed to be harvested last year in this same region NEAR Yellowstone – that would be TWO WOLVES!

Officials had recommended increasing that quota to SIX WOLVES! However, that figure just doesn’t sound so threatening to wolves as does a statement to TRIPLE the wolf harvest.

Get a life!

Share