August 24, 2019

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part I

I thank God daily that there still exists in this country a few people who think independently; who refuse to blindly accept the “settled” theories, the many studies and the strategic lying of our string-pulled media without questioning. Without these people, surely by now America and the rest of the world would have been devoured by the New World Order lead by a One World Government headed by a dictator. These thinking people are slowing the process and keeping the promoters of the destruction of this country, with the goal of One World Government, somewhat at bay.

Recently, I have told many older friends to sit down and make a list of everything they could think of that made America great; the greatest nation on earth where everyone wanted a piece of the American Dream; where none dared rattle our cage or test our resolve. If we were to examine that list, then wouldn’t it make sense that in order to destroy the greatness of a country like America that all one need do is take each item and change or destroy it?

Unfortunately, with each passing generation, the list shrinks or is completely rewritten reflecting the changing mindset of the American citizen. But why? Is this change, at least from the perspective of those who can recognize it, a natural phenomenon? In other words, is it in man’s nature, that given to him by God, to willingly work at destroying inalienable, God-given rights and all that made America great? Or are there forces at work, out to destroy, item by item, everything that is on that list of America’s greatness and for what purpose would they do this? I hope to answer at least some of these questions to give you a better understanding of why a well-proven wildlife management plan, a plan that in my opinion belongs on the list of what made America great, is being systematically destroyed and replaced with new-science outcome based education. In outcome based education, one chooses the desired outcome and manipulates the data, even devising of false data, to achieve such predilection.

It’s been about 10 years now that I began to turn my focus of writing and researching to hunting, wildlife, wildlife management, the environment, Endangered Species Act and much of all the politics that go, unfortunately, hand in hand now with everything related to the outdoors. It’s easy to castigate “environmentalism” as the root cause, and one’s effort in that would be rightfully justified, but there has to be more to it. Environmentalism contains innumerable evils, which to the trained eye can be recognizable, but who or what is behind environmentalism and is it the same force that is changing the mindset of our young students through education?

Over the years of writing and researching on these topics, it became very clear to me that people just didn’t think (and I use that term very loosely) the same way as previous generations. I wondered how long this had been going on, but more importantly, why.

If I may take a moment to step back to a time in American history when settlers and appointees of governments and commercial establishments took from the resources of wild game until one day it was realized that all taking and no giving was not sustainable – meaning without some kind of restrictions and efforts on the part of man to conserve the resources, there soon would be none.

While not a perfect solution, over time, coupled with a desire of many to sustain viable wildlife species, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was crafted. It wasn’t long before the implementation of this working model restored game species as well as gave the outdoor sportsmen the opportunities for surplus harvests, without depleting the resource. This Model became the envy of the civilized world.

So then, why are we moving away from it and replacing it with contrary, faux science, driven by outcome based strategies that are not working and have led to sizable reductions in game herds and overwhelming increases in large predators; a direct competitor of the hunter/trapper?

To go along with the mentality that exists in wildlife management, that nature is self regulating, there exists a hatred toward man. Man is always perceived as the culprit, the one to point a finger at as the destroyer of wildlife. There is an incessant drum beat of: “the animals were here first”, that “there are just too many people” and that “man is encroaching on everything to do with wildlife” and ruining it; while seldom providing the proper documentation to support such claims. It’s easy to look at places like Westchester County, New York, a suburb of New York City, where on a recent trip along the Saw Mill River Parkway heading for the Tappan Zee Bridge, I witnessed more deer grazing along the highway and in people’s back yards than I saw for an entire week of hunting deer in the deep Maine woods.

I suppose it may be related to the person who calls a glass of water half empty rather than half full, but others see this occurrence and somehow see it as man’s fault. The poor deer/dear! If it is man’s fault for doing too good a job devising ways to protect and conserve deer and other wildlife, then I guess the shoe fits and must be worn. However, these same man haters fail to comprehend history of how things were in America before it was America.

Many have swallowed the pill and believe what they have been told that in pre-Columbian days the forests, hills and plains of this vast and beautiful country were teeming with wildlife everywhere. While there existed areas of abundant wildlife, it is fact that much of our wildlife in this country never inhabited vast areas until man settled and unknowingly or unintentionally created large expanses of wildlife habitat by growing lush crops, lawns, flower beds, working forests, etc. The result now being perhaps the largest populations of most wildlife at any given time in history in this nation.

So, is the problem, if there is one, that man is ruining everything for our wildlife? Or, is there a problem that man has done too good of a job? Consider a recent article found in the Wall Street Journal, written by Jim Sterba. Sterba says that we have done such a remarkable job of conserving wildlife that in many areas there are too many and that presents a host of problems, some of which are very expensive.

It is not my intent to get off on side discussions about wildlife management. It is my intent to point out what I perceive as obvious and I’m sure non existent for others; that our scientists graduating from our education factories are leaving with information that, when applied, appears to be more geared at destroying our wildlife, while ripping man to shreds, rather than improving on a pretty darn good, man-made, wildlife conservation model for management.

Why? Who is teaching these students such things and why? Does it begin once they reach college or are our students being “prepared” to enter the science world long before college graduation day.

Part II will take a closer look.

Share

If I Wanted To End Hunting, What Would I Do?

If I wanted to be the despot of the New World Order/One World Government, and one of the ways I believed imperative to control the people, those lovers of liberty, to achieve that goal, was to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing, how would I do it?

In it’s most simplistic form, I would have to take away the tools used to kill game or take away the game. But seriously, who is going to sit quietly by while one day I decide it’s time to destroy and ban ownership of guns, bows and arrows, traps, fishing poles, etc.? So far that hasn’t happened although there are efforts underway to slowly undermine the manufacture and possession of certain of these tools. But just keep believing it’s “reasonable” restrictions. “Nothing to see here! Move on, please!”

And would we as a people revolt if, one day, we woke up and were told all game species are now protected and cannot be hunted, trapped or fished? Probably not as well, but what if it was all just a slow death? Would we even take notice?

I’m not sure how we can put a timeline together as to when it started but in my judgement the birth of environmentalism in the 1970s was the onset of the end of our hunting, trapping and fishing culture and heritage. No, we didn’t wake up one morning and discover we couldn’t hunt and fish. A slow erosion has forever stripped away the identity of our hunting and fishing culture and heritage and replaced it with a socialistic architecture; the result of a war waged at winning the public’s trust first, then a systematic, unnoticeable (by most), dismantling of not only our culture and heritage, but the science that crafted the foundation of a wildlife management scheme of which was the envy of the world.

If it isn’t enough that most of us slept through the 70s, 80s, 90s and the early 2000s, we not only remain asleep but some that have woken up enough to get a first cup of coffee into them, don’t realize they are still being duped and at the same time thinking they have put a stop to, or at least slowed down, the onslaught against hunting and fishing and trapping. Quick! Drink another cup of coffee or six.

I have a case in point, which I will be forthright in saying it is my opinion based on years of reading, research, discovery and history. I have always said a person has met his match when he walks into, let’s say someone’s office, to demand their way and walks out with a big smile on his face believing he has won his demand, not knowing he was further taken advantage of. Being taken advantage of comes from ignorance and naivete.

In the Northern Rocky Mountains region, the citizens there were lied to and miserably misrepresented by government as to the realities of gray wolf reintroduction. Some have called the actions by the United States Government, staff and certain non governmental agencies and staff, criminal in nature and in need of legal prosecution.

Regardless, gray wolves were dumped onto the landscape and the result, in my opinion, has been a disaster; not in the sense that wolves didn’t make a biological recovery, but for whatever the reasons one chooses to point a finger at, it has turned into a social nightmare and a biological imbalance of wildlife species in those areas where wolves have been allowed to run rampant. However, the perpetrators of the wolf introduction aren’t suddenly going to roll over and play dead.

There’s a better way for them. In the original plans, such as they were, there was talk that one day there might be enough wolves in the forest to offer a hunting season on them. By doing such, even though many of the useful idiots who don’t understand the despot’s plan, the varmint dog is elevated to an equal social icon as other “big game” animals, i.e. elk, deer, moose, big horn sheep, grizzlies, etc. Now that the species is elevated to something it should never have been allowed to, more protections are put on the creature and value that is contemptible.

That one day came around and to appease the “sportsmen”, a hunting, and yes, even a trapping season in some places, was offered; a complete placation to the sportsmen. This should have been seen as an insult, a mockery of the tried and esteemed “model” of game management, and instead was hailed by some sportsmen as a victory.

History has proven that you can’t manage the gray wolf like you do other game animals. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation utilizes the hunting of game species to control populations and a controlling of predators to protect the game species; the key word being “control”. If wolves and other large predators aren’t controlled in order to produce consumptive use, then there will result in no game left to hunt. Oh wait! Isn’t that my despotic plan?

Nearly four years ago I warned that the plans being formulated by fish and game institutions would have no effect on the wolf populations. Around about that same time, I did a five-part series on the historic difficulties by civilizations in many countries, including the United States, to control wolves.

The short of it is, having limited tool and resource hunting and trapping seasons is only going to make the sportsmen think they have gotten their way, when in fact their opportunities will slowly diminish to nothing. Is there a smile on your face? Is that satisfactory to you?

As I write, Idaho and Montana have had wolf hunting seasons. Wyoming and Wisconsin are planning them this fall, although Wyoming’s may not happen because of lawsuits (what else is new?).

As the evil despot that I am, I believe I have mitigated the angst of many of the sportsmen. This will allow me more time to do things like Idaho is doing; lining up environmentalists, animal rights groups, predator protectors, etc. who will funnel the money I channel to them – through worldwide agencies all opposed to consumptive wildlife use, land ownership, liberty and rights – to fund wildlife departments nationwide that have now all been brainwashed into believing my hogwash I injected into the education institutions many years before. My plan is in place, so deeply rooted you’ll never change it. You might slow it down here and there, so go back to sleep.

Not that I think there’s a lot that can be done anymore to stop this giant steamroller, but at least don’t be shot with a black bag over your head. Knowing who killed your culture and heritage must have some kind of redeeming value. Doesn’t it? Snore!

Share

Environmentalists and Sportsmen ARE Formidable Enemies

George Smith, writer and television talk show host, penned an article today in Maine’s Kennebec Journal. Smith’s title reads: “GEORGE SMITH: Environmentalists, sportsmen are formidable as partners”. Smith went on in an attempt to allay the truth in his own title.

Environmentalists and hunters, trappers and fishermen – those outdoor sportsmen – will remain formidable – horrible, terrifying, as the definition goes – so long as environmentalists continue their goals to reduce and/or eliminate hunting, trapping and fishing, and to continue the educational takeover of our schools and children to brainwash them with fallacies about the earth, wind and water and all the creatures that dwell therein.

The only response I will offer to George Smith’s portrayal of how warm and fuzzy relationships should be between sportsmen and environmentalists, is the photo image below. It pretty much says it all.

Share

Relationships With Fish and Game Departments at All-Time Low

Yesterday in the Missoulian, republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill stated, “One of the things I’ve heard everywhere that I go is that the relationship today between Fish, Wildlife and Parks and landowners and sportsmen is at an all-time low.”

Should this come as a surprise to anyone? Do people think that this is something that has happened overnight? No and no! And this seemingly newly discovered phenomenon isn’t relegated to Montana. It’s an epidemic that reaches every state in this Union. Sportsmen and landowners have almost as bad an opinion of their fish and game departments as Americans do of their Congress or the presidency. And why is that?

There once was a day when fish and game departments were constructed with the idea to devise plans that would perpetuate game species so that everyone had a chance to stock up on food and/or sell animal furs to supplement or provide income. These fish and game departments originally were a direct extension of the outdoor sportsmen.

Not anymore! Fish and game departments have become giant government agencies with too many powers and a focus that caters to environmentalism and animal rights and animal protection. Along with this demented change in direction and overreaching power grab, landowners are not only losing rights to use their land as is necessary but in some cases they lose their land altogether. And with this do we really need to doubt what Hill says, that this relationship between sportsmen/landowners and fish and game is at an all-time low?

When fish and game departments functioned as a supporting entity of the sportsmen, there was also a certain degree of ownership and pride in that ownership. Are any readers old enough to remember the day when you could actually talk with a representative from a fish and game department and be treated as an equal, one with respect and an understanding of who paid whose salary? That pride of ownership kept sportsmen involved in the process. They knew their voice would be heard and when it wasn’t, fish and game personnel were out of a job.

Today, fish and game departments pretend they are interested in the sportsmen. Some even masquerade as humans who understand their role and function as that of serving the public. But don’t be fooled. They are a government organization. Governments are not any friend of the people and they certainly are not friends of sportsmen or landowners. This is because sportsmen and landowners are what stand in their way to fulfill their agendas of protecting wildlife, ridding human presence from the forests and fields, relegating us all to concrete jungles and levying control over us all. Get rid of us and they get what they want, or at least think they do.

But the problem that perpetuates this insanity is that government attempts to fix government with more government. It’s what keeps them collecting a salary. Talk is cheap. Words in this case are nothing more than campaign rhetoric, meaningless drivel to placate the masses in order to steal your vote.

Until states regain control over their environmentalism-strangled fish and game departments and change the direction and goals back to game management combined with an understanding and respect for landowners, nothing will change. Actually look for it to get worse.

The people are lazy, brainwashed robots who want government to do their bidding. Why do you think we are where we are now? Government is not the answer to government.

Tom Remington

Share

Designating Predators as “Big Game Animals” is Counterproductive to Game Management

Most state’s fish and game departments are required, either through constitutional regulation or legislative mandates to manage game species for surplus populations to provide harvest opportunities for the citizens. This was something that was learned shortly after the turn of the twentieth century when unregulated and commercial hunting reduced game populations to levels that became dangerously close to unsustainable.

The establishment of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation became the foundation of how states should view fish and game species and manage accordingly.

Through history, fishing, trapping and hunting, while never specifically referenced in the U.S. Constitution, were to most people, an inalienable right. It was never questioned that people would always hunt and fish and who would have thought that one day they would be prohibited from participating in these special and necessary activities. Unfortunately, as with most rights, people seem to find pleasure in appropriating one person’s rights to bolster the agenda of their own special interests.

The idea of fishing, hunting and trapping was founded in the need and want of people for sustenance. Our inappropriately twisted society has systematically gone about convincing the masses that hunting, trapping and fishing are a “sport”, some kind of perverted activity to kill innocent animals and that there is no longer a need or want to fill one’s freezer. After all, there are grocery stores. With this manipulation of minds, over time our fish and game departments have become infiltrated with those who think exactly as I have described. This has resulted in management goals and objectives that have moved away from those created years ago.

While some in their progressive thinking might believe that the new way of doing things is better, there is lacking the good and proven science to support it. Where once fish and game departments managed for surplus supplies of fish and game for harvest, there now exists the mindset that harvest is secondary, that hunting, trapping and fishing are mere recreations. This has become intertwined with the badly taught myth that nature balances itself out. Along with the preaching of this myth is that hunting, trapping and fishing are no longer needed and thus we should not be concerned with surplus supplies of game animals. Instead predator protection as taken center stage, perhaps for the direct purpose to end these activities.

Man is a predator. It really is that simple and man is a part of the ecosystems that many environmentalists seem to want to rid him from. When predators are protected, the competition for prey species increases and thus, this diminishes this once thought of inalienable right to hunt and fish.

Whether we like it or not, the hunting and fishing industries provide billions of dollars to businesses and bolsters the tax base of the states and federal government. It is integral. To destroy these industries would be detrimental to a lot of people.

So why then are fish and game departments working so hard to protect predators? Do these departments fail to understand that if the hunting and fishing industries die, more than likely they will be out of a job? Yes, these agencies have worked for decades to move fish and game departments into environmental agencies and use general tax dollars for funding, in order to further remove the power of the sportsman from the decision making processes.

If states are going to perpetuate fishing and hunting opportunities for its citizens, the only way this can be done effectively is through predator control and not predator protection. What has always bothered me is when states opt to designate a predator as a “big game” animal. With such distinction, this animal then achieves the status as a species that is managed to provide hunting or fishing opportunities for the people. By doing such, the same mind set exists to manage for surplus harvests. This is a complete contradiction in managing traditional fish and game species (elk, deer, moose, caribou, sheep, etc.) for surplus.

Nobody is ever going to convince me that placing the hunting value of a predator like a bear, wolf, mountain lion or coyote, over that of a deer, moose, elk, caribou, etc. is a good thing. And yet, our fish and game are designating varmints like coyotes and wolves, as “big game” species, selling permits to hunt them and these creatures are in direct competition for the same prey species man is seeking. How does this make sense? It would seem that only a person opposed to man’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness would perpetuate such nonsense.

I understand the need, when necessary, to regulate the control and killing of predators, and thus the need for season and permits…..as I say, when necessary.

If your state no longer seems willing to manage game species for surplus harvest, perhaps it’s time to let the people know about it. If your fish and game department is protecting predators and managing them to perpetuate a hunting, fishing or trapping season on them, you know they probably have lost interest in managing real game for surplus harvest.

For me it just seems a really stupid thing to over protect the very creature that destroys your industry.

Tom Remington

Share

Managing Wildlife In “An Environmentally Responsible Way”

For every one of the thousands of “environmentally responsible” bits of propaganda that get printed to thousands of media sources nationwide, at least 10 rebuttals with factual information need to be made in hopes of stemming the tide of inaccurate and regurgitated bad information about wildlife management, and moving those discussions forward with scientifically substantiated facts. It is a relentless battle, but alas, the war rages on.

A rightfully placed “opinion piece” in the Bangor Daily News, from Heather Bolint“Heather Bolint of Damariscotta is a 2009 graduate of Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Fl., where she earned a BA in environmental studies” – is a rerun of the same old unproven theories that have for years been bandied around by environmentalists and animal activists as fact. While attempting to cherry pick a few theories dressed up like “studies” to substantiate her own agitprop, Ms. Bolint tells readers there exists no other studies but hers and all other information is inaccurate. Or, perhaps she just didn’t go look.

One of the greatest threats today to our wildlife management programs in this country comes from environmentalist, much like the author of this piece. Environmentalists tend to perpetuate theories and ideologies, such as “balance of nature”, “self-regulation”, bolstered by the absurd delusion that man is not part of the equation. This perspective is one from an environmentalist and certainly not one from real wildlife science and as such, the agenda-driven environmentalists use phraseology for wildlife management as, “An Environmentally Responsible Way”.

Actual wildlife biology took a back seat in recent years to demands from social activists, i.e. animal rights; placing animals at or above a plane with humans; a want to “view” wildlife; skewed moral and ethics issues, etc. This is not actual responsibility to care for the wild animals but is, in fact, a labeled “environmentally responsible way”. The author references her misconception by stating, “Maine’s coyote control is needless and unregulated and merely serves the purpose of providing financial stability to the IF&W rather than an environmentally responsible way to manage wildlife.”

Isn’t it a bit on an oxymoron to link together “environment” and “responsible”?

It is first important to point out to readers that Maine essentially does NOT have a coyote control program. Through extensive research recently, I learned that in 2004 the Maine Legislature repealed any remains of the Coyote Control Program. The only coyote “control” that exists amounts to ample hunting opportunities, limited trapping opportunities and a sparse, at best, animal damage control program of targeting winter deer yards to kill coyotes that are extirpating our deer herd.

The author chooses to utilize information written on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) website and present it as fact, when in fact most of the information she references pertains to Maine’s Coyote Control Program which has been repealed. She grabs this quote:

By continuing the coyote control program, the public may perceive the Department [of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife] implicitly believes the control program has a strong biological basis, when in fact, the biological benefits of coyote control are unknown.”

And this:

“It is not known whether the current snaring program, or other forms of coyote control, has any effect on increasing local or regional deer numbers.”

As well as this one:

“The possibility exists that the removal of territorial coyotes may allow nonterritorial coyotes into an area, and exacerbate the deer predation problem.”

It is no secret that the MDIFW has an aversion for predator control. After all, predator control is one of those nasty things that are learned in indoctrination camps these days. Our biologists are taught unproven theories; that predators like coyotes and wolves are “healthy for our ecosystems” and that nature “self regulates”. This is all junk science and intellectual rubbish.

Environmentalists created the use of “ecosystem” to term our forests and fields; “eco”, of course relating to the environment and “system” as it might refer to orderliness, or organization of working parts that yield a desired result. The only thing that might resemble a “system” in wildlife management comes from man’s effort to work to keep it at some sort of socially acceptable “balance”, i.e. not allowing one species to dominate and kill off another, etc. This is why we developed wildlife management and devised the Northern America Model for wildlife Conservation. It has been all part of the environmentalists’ plan to use social tolerance in wildlife management programs while giving biological science a back seat.

To those people who perpetuate the myth of nature balancing itself, I merely demand that they prove it. They can’t.

But back to the opinion piece, using worn out, and unproven theories about coyotes and predators as a whole from the MDIFW website of outdated information in order to bolster claims that it is “environmentally irresponsible” to control coyotes doesn’t make the grade.

For decades environmentalists and animal rights organization, who know nothing of predator/prey relationships or wildlife management in general, and pay their “scientists” well to give them the theories they wish to perpetuate, have regurgitated the theories about alpha males and females and reactive population growth from implementation of predator control. These have NEVER been proven and contrary to what Heather Bolint says, there does exist studies and data to indicate otherwise.

Dr. L. David Mech, around 1970 published in a book he wrote about how important it was to preserve the “alpha male” in a pack and the disruption it would cause by removing that alpha male. In other words, he was the author, the founder, the creator of the alpha male myth. But on Dr. Mech’s own website, he tells people that he has since that time learned that this simply is not true. He writes:

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.”

However, the discovery of this information is not allowed to stand in the way of the agendas of environmentalist whose goals include the ending of hunting, fishing and trapping. The argument has always been that in random killing of coyotes, if the alpha male and/or alpha female are killed, the pack will be sent into disarray resulting in increased predation of livestock and family pets, etc. We know this now to be false.

What else are we finding is false?

For the MDIFW biologists to include on their website a statement about how removing “territorial” coyotes in one area might allow for “nonterritorial” coyotes to move in, is actually a reflection of their own lack of more modern understanding of predator and prey relationships and the behaviors of predators such as coyotes. Coyotes essentially have two functions. Kill and eat and reproduce. If targeted coyotes in one territory are removed and hungry dispersing coyotes are looking for a place to go, they might go there or they might not. They are opportunistic animals. If they do fill that void as might be believed, an ongoing coyote control program would solve that problem too. This is not complicated.

When anyone carries with them the unproven theory that if you kill a certain number of coyotes, they will produce more to replace those, will, more than likely, also possess the misinformation that targeting coyotes only allows more to take their place. To state this information as fact, as I have said earlier, is intellectual rubbish and dishonesty.

The entire opinion piece is a fabrication of unproven theories, exceptionally poor information and in some cases, actual myths. Readers should beware that this creation of anti-hunting decretum belongs in the opinion section.

The author reveals her anti-hunting agenda when she says:

Coyote control in Maine is facilitated through shooting, trapping, baiting and running down coyotes with dogs. These can be inhumane methods and are not regulated…..

Humaneness belongs to the eyes of the beholder. While Bolint tries to convince readers that shooting, trapping, baiting and hunting coyotes with dogs, is inhumane treatment, she falls flat on her face failing to discuss the realities of uncontrolled and unmanaged wildlife as a comparison. Of course, anyone who has an aversion or detestation to hunting and trapping of wild animals, would think it inhumane. The “natural” means of death to these animals can be about as inhumane, by human standards, as it can get. What is humane about protecting predators like coyotes to the point they become disease ridden? Coyotes can be carriers of up to thirty known diseases, parasites, etc. Common diseases are mange, parvovirus, distemper and rabies. What is humane about watching a coyote wither away and die from these diseases? Early in grade-school science we learned that too many animals in too small a space, breeds and spreads disease.

We control rats and other disease-spreading, undesirable creatures but somehow, while one may turn a blind eye to mice and rats being killed in a trap, quickly dispatching a coyote through hunting and trapping is somehow considered inhumane? I question if the author has any knowledge at all about hunting and trapping.

What is humane about having so many coyotes in some locations that they are extirpating deer herds? What’s humane about the realization of how hungry coyotes, being forced to kill more deer to survive, go about ripping a fetus from a female deer they are carrying in the middle of a deer wintering yard? What is humane about having a coyote eat a deer alive?

What is humane about so many coyotes eating the same prey that is food for other wildlife causing starvation and serious reduction of those species. An example might well by the Canada lynx. Its main prey for sustenance is the hare. If too many coyotes eat up all the hare, what chance does the lynx have? Is that humane? Is this even rational thinking?

The author of this piece is ignorant of the nonexistent coyote control program. She’s uneducated in the facts of coyote behavior as well as predator/prey relationships and provides readers with nothing more than blather, dressed up with a new skirt and bright lipstick and presented as factual information.

Ms. Bolint is an educated environmentalist. She has no idea that the MDIFW and many of the scientists there are her allies. Many there perpetuate the same environmental junk science and share the same theories and myths.

If people actually would like to see well-controlled and healthy populations of many and diverse species, the first thing that is needed is to get rid of environmentalism. It is not a science. It’s a religion given too much power and recognition and it is destroying our forest and fields by doing everything they can to get man out of the woods resulting in widespread predator pits absent of any kind of diverse and healthy wildlife populations.

Tom Remington

Share

Teaching Environmentalists How To Propagandize The Public

This is really a hoot when you stop and think about it. Environmentalists looking to promote their Marxist agendas and foist their ideals onto the American Public, have created a “Glossary for the Public“. This is a detailed look at how some words or phrases have negative connotations and others get the job done of snowing the public and pulling the wool over their eyes. It’s all propaganda used to brainwash the public and indoctrinate our kids.

Mind you, it’s never about presenting truth and facts so that the public can make rational decisions about the world around them. It is however about selecting the correct, often misleading words and phrases, in order to convince people that stealing away your property and rights is something you are willing to do but are not aware you are doing it, i.e. getting screwed and loving it.

I suggest you all read and pay attention and then using this Glossary for the Public, see how it plays out in your world.

Tom Remington

Share