August 23, 2019

Demand Censorship to Promote Animal Idealism

The linked-to article below is but one more example of how the progressives on the left are such ignorant hypocrites and the totalitarians they really are. The author takes issue with an article published in the Portland Press Herald that addressed the fact (yes it is a fact, studied by and published by read search scientists) that the wild canines living in Maine are a breed mixture of coyote, wolf and domestic dog. This ad mixture has resulted in a larger canine species carrying with in some wolf traits as well as those of the domestic dogs they may have bred with. This is nothing more than a biological fact of dog breeding.

All this evidently stirs up the demands by leftists to censor the journalist who wrote the story because the article did not 100% support the nonsense the coyote adorers want to force on to the public. Only their “truth” matters.

As an example of leftist demonization of anyone with a contrary thought, the author takes the high road and claims the only one in existence that holds the keys to enlightenment. Odd that the same author chose to take quotes from old retired biologists, who were trained in the ridiculous theories about wild canines, i.e. at a time when theories swarmed about trophic cascades and the “balance of nature,” as well as the myth of litter size doubling when coyotes are killed. All of these theories have since that time been scientifically proven as false, at least to some degree, and yet it is still convenient to cherry pick what fits a narrative.

Another tactic is the use of words to present members of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and anyone else who might support control of predators, as barbaric people and ignorant of the science of predator prey relationships and the behavior of wild canines. I might suggest that anyone who would rely on old, rejected science and ancient quotes about how coyotes in Maine are no threat to the deer herd, when coyotes numbered less than 5,000 (today closer to 20,000) are the ones who are ignorant of facts.

The truth in all of this is we have a group(s) that perceives any animal at or above the same plane of existence as man and they loathe any kind of animal killing. These are the same people who generally promote the murder of over one million unborn babies a year and yet go off the deep end when reasonable people try to find a respectable balance within the animal resources we have that are a benefit to all, not just those who worship animals.

I would suggest that if this author is going to attempt to scientifically prove that controlling and managing wildlife is wrong and barbaric….oh, wait. There is no science to prove that. More than likely these people are still doing daily readings from Farley Mowat.

“Portland Press Herald readers and subscribers want and expect high quality journalism on wildlife, wildlife policy matters, and the role wild animals play in healthy, bio-diverse ecosystems.

It is past time to move these important subjects out of the realm of the sports department to give them the serious attention and treatment they deserve.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

INSANITY: Far Beyond Being Responsible for Animal Welfare

“The panelists praise wolves for their adaptability: Their plump paws are perfect snowshoes in winter, and their lean, aerodynamic bodies help them run as fast as 40 mph and cover hundreds of miles across a variety of terrain. Suzanne Stone, a biologist with Defenders of Wildlife, points to the audience and asks, “Can I use you as guinea pigs?” She arranges volunteers into a pack structure. A zoo staff member in a khaki shirt holds his hand up high, like the pack’s strong alpha male holds his tail, while a woman with dyed purple hair hunches and folds her arms inward—a vulnerable pup. A woman in a brown cardigan takes the role of a beta female, which Stone likens to “middle management,” helping baby-sit pups while other adults seek food. As the pups grow, they branch out, going through a lone wolf period before eventually forming new packs.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Perverted Environmentalists Sue Over Wolf Hunts Where No Wolves Were Harmed

*Editor’s Note*I told you so! If it wasn’t for the fact that the greatest interest of the Environmentalists is making money, one would have to wonder what all the fuss is about. An Idaho sportsman’s organization held two wolf hunting derbies for two consecutive years and manage to kill no wolves. Yet, insane and money-grubbing, environMENTAL, fake animal rights groups are suing the U.S. Government to stop the killing…er, or maybe they are suing to get more money and use the cause to lie, cheat and steal by playing on the emotions of brain dead “humans” to get their money.

Steve Alder of Idaho for Wildlife said the group isn’t holding its Predator Hunting Contest this winter because hunters were unable to kill any wolves the previous two winters.”We don’t care about lawsuits, but we failed miserably at harvesting a wolf,” Alder said. “There’s no point getting sponsorships and doing this and that and not being able to get a wolf.”The group overcame lawsuits to hold the events on private land and U.S. Forest Service land the past two winters.

Source: Feds face lawsuits over Idaho wolf-killing derby | Local & Regional | Boise, Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell, Idaho News, Weather, Sports and Breaking News – KBOI 2

Share

HSUS: “Hollow, One-Dimensional Ideologues and the Unbridled Cynicism”

V. Paul Reynolds, in his weekly column in the Sun Journal, shares his perspective on the State of Maine dealing with the Humane Society of the United States. In part he says:

There can be only one explanation for HSUS’s strategy, notwithstanding its stunning gall and apparent contempt for Maine’s way of life. Policymakers in this organization have determined that they can eventually wear us down, that we, sportsmen and outfitters, will run out of money before they do. And they may be right.

Never mind ethics. Never mind integrity. Never mind fair play. Never mind the public will. Winning is all that counts, so spend money willfully and wear down the opposition. Bury it with piles of greenbacks! Buy a victory. To hell with what the people want. Impose your values on those who don’t see it your way. Shove it down their provincial throats!

BearAndNoose

Share

BLM Rescinds Idaho for Wildlife’s Predator Derby Permit – Fascism Rules

This should come as further substantiation that the country we live in is dictated by totalitarian environmentalists, who are doing exactly what the U.S. Government wants them to do. Actions like this, made to appear as though “Washington” forced BLM to rescind the permit, makes most believe there is innocents among the predator wolves of Washington and the fascist U.S. Government. Wake up people! We are not living in a free country any longer.

Press Release from Idaho for Wildlife:

IDAHO FOR WILDLIFE, INC.
PRESS RELEASE (11-25-14)
By Steve Alder, Pres.

The decision by the BLM to withdraw our permit will not stop the coyote and wolf hunt. We cannot dictate where people hunt. We will follow the same procedure as we did last year and require hunters during registration to sign a waiver stating that any wolf or coyote taken on BLM land will not qualify for the derby. The BLM at the DC level has become too politically influenced and motivated. The idea that they would require a full blown NEPA analysis including an Environmental assessment for only 100-150 hunters to cover over 3million acres is absurd and ridiculous.

We worked very hard with the local BLM to be granted the permit. After the BLM refused to grant us a permit last year, they advised us to start the permit process early and we jumped through every hoop they required. They issued us a permit and then the DC bureaucrats revoked it. There is no doubt that the local BLM spend a time and resources on this permitting process. The BLM policies need to be changed and we will push for more legislative oversight of this out of control agency that is now caving to the radical anti-hunters.

We will offer 2 cash prizes, one for the most coyotes and one for the most wolves. We will provide additional prizes for successful youth hunters.

100% of the excess cash contributions will be given back to the Salmon valley to various charities, such as a college scholarship, The local food bank, and to help a local rancher that was severely impacted by wolf depredation this past summer. This rancher is not one of the large ranchers and he lost the majority of his calf crop along with 13 adult cows to wolves this past Summer while they were grazing on Public land and this that has devastated him financially. He’s hoping to get a job at the new ShopKo that they are building in Salmon as he doesn’t think he can recover financially.

Thanks,

Steve Alder

Share

Anybody Out There?

A guest post by James Beers:

Two hours ago I sent out a short article (Public Employees and Animal Rights) about how the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) was suing USFWS and the State of Alaska for “using federal wildlife restoration grants to illegally support killing wolves and bears to increase moose and caribou hunting”. What they call “grants” at this point on their website they later refer to as “federal funds” and later yet as “federal wildlife funds” and finally as “money from taxpayers in the other 49 states” are actually none of these.

Evidently in the time it took to mow my lawn and pull a few (native?) weeds in my garden I gained a significant number of new and unhappy readers. The hate mail is surprising and indicates a nerve has been struck.

Boys and girls, sorry but “killing wolves and bears” allows “moose and caribou hunting” to both increase and endure. FYI, those dollars the U of Alaska Prof and other bleeding heart public employees have gotten the “vapors” about are NOT “grants” or “federal funds” or “federal wildlife funds” or certainly not “money from taxpayers in the other 49 states”. Those Funds are EXCISE TAXES ON ARMS AND AMMUNITON AND CERTAIN SPORTING ITEMS USED FOR HUNTING. They are collected by the federal government for the exclusive use of state fish and wildlife programs for WILDLIFE RESTORATION. BY law the funds can only be used by State wildlife agencies and the states receive their share of the annual available funding BASED ON ½ THE SIZE (SQ. MILES) OF THE STATE AND ½ ON THE NUMBER OF HUNTING LICENSES SOLD IN THE STATE. These EXCISE TAXES and this Pittman Robertson Program were instituted in 1937 by hunters to perpetuate and enhance hunting opportunity under honest and professional state wildlife programs.

Curious, those words “Wildlife Restoration”: they replaced the words “Pittman Robertson” and “Wildlife Management” in the early 1990’s when the old P-R Law was retitled by Congress. At that time only a small group of hunting advocates raised any question and they were marginalized by the USFWS bureaucrats AND the State F&W Directors AND the hunting NGO’s. Why, you might be tempted to ask? Because that was the “Dawning of the Wildlife Age of Aquarius” when everyone believed hunting, trapping, and fishing were soon to be banned and “Chickadee Check-offs”, “Birdseed Taxes” and “Outdoor Taxes” (how about that last one Madame Secretary of the Interior and former “outdoor” Co. Exec?). The name change was unopposed by the very same State Directors and hunting NGO’s that lost their voices a few short years later when those same federal bureaucrats that led them forward into their Brave New World STOLE $45 to 60 Million from those funds to do 2 things Congress had (wisely) refused to either fund or authorize – 1. Release wolves into Yellowstone Park to spread all over the Mountain West, and 2. Open a new office in California for USFWS and all those radical environmental/animal rights groups that dwell there to cozy up together like some cheap Grade-B movie characters. So all those old, but valid, objections by a few hotheads like yours truly are hereby shown to have been true. Even wildlife “scientists” (OOOH) tell the entire nation that “their tax dollars” are going to something he dislikes and should be stopped and those doing it punished.

Well Herr Doctor and all the rest of you with your panties in a wad this “ain’t” healthcare where you can mandate it and then complain about old folks getting knee replacements or stints that “YOU PAY FOR.” First, if you want to complain start buying guns and ammunition and then whine as a real contributor, and then 2. whine about why anything that perpetuates and increases Alaskan moose and caribou hunting and license sales (short of turning over Christian children to Jihadists) is not a worthy use of those Excise Taxes.

This brings up two other items. First, this PEER lawsuit has USFWS fingerprints all over it. USFWS is always modifying the regulations and with the current crop of “Public Employees” would see this suit as right up their alley as a way to kill hunting. Their moral indignation and ignorance is only exceeded by the arrogance that bleeds all over this PEER lawsuit. Yet another reason to reduce bureaucratic power and the size of the federal “work” force.

Second, yesterday I received a Waterfowl & Retriever magazine in the mail. Page 5 reports “Hunting Expanded in National Wildlife Refuge System”. The “expansion” covers 6 new programs that I suspect are six new refuges and “expansion” on 20 other Refuges of indeterminate amounts. My first reaction was that this was a ploy for Democrats in tight re-election races to brag about bringing home some “bacon”; why else would this be done at this time by the current USFWS bureaucrats?

When I turned the page I saw why. Delta Waterfowl has “sent a letter” (one is tempted to ask if it was one of those “strong letters” said to follow a strong public verbal objection?) to USFWS opposing the USFWS California/Nevada Regional Office decision to “cease migratory bird programming (that means all waterfowl hunting programs Pilgrims) in California and Nevada in order to address a backlog of permitting, research and evaluation needs related to wind and solar energy projects.” So now USFWS is an energy apologist outfit as they exempt wind propeller operations from any prosecution for killing eagles that they will still send you and me to prison for. All of the waterfowl work for which they were founded is now set aside for “permitting, research and evaluation needs related to wind and solar energy projects.”

By the way, this CA/NV Regional Office is the very same office that Congress refused to fund or authorize in the early 1990’s but for which USFWS STOLE $45 to 60 Million from the above EXCISE TAXES to open surreptitiously. Republicans, upon discovering what took place were all set to close that office but serendipity intervened when USFWS made the recently hired daughter of US Senator Ted Stevens, perhaps the most powerful Republican in the US Senate at that time, the office manager. Alas Congress was right when they said NIX to any new office in California but USFWS stole the money, did it anyway and all the “perps” went on to greater fame and glory in Earth Day Celebrations and on lists of great conservationists as their annual salaries reached dizzying heights.

So here are a couple of suggestions:

1. Ask your state fish and wildlife Director where he stands on the lawsuit to bar Alaska from using PR funds for predator control to improve moose and caribou hunting. Tell him you believe this is a very dangerous precedent to allow anti-hunting lawsuits to expand federal authority while diminishing state authority over the use of PR funds for hunting programs. Ask him what he is going to do.

2. Ask DU, PF, RMEF, and any other hunting organization you belong to the same questions as in #1.

3. Send a letter to USFWS in Washington with copies to every state and federal elected person you know, STRONGLY objecting to USFWS rejecting their Migratory Bird Management Responsibilities for which they receive Migratory Bird Funding AND then using those dollars and those employees to be little more than undeserved apologists for the wind energy industry that has consistently killed millions of birds while USFWS looked away and is now receiving exemptions to kill eagles from USFWS. USFWS has lost sight of their mission and the responsibilities for which they were created and exist.

4. If any of the worthies in #’s 1 & 2 tell you they won’t join with Alaska to defeat this lawsuit, or that it doesn’t affect waterfowl or pheasants, etc., or they just try to baffle you with BS — stop giving any money to such organizations and work for the dismissal or firing of your State Director and look to clean the state F&W house of anti-hunters regardless of any federal or state protections, preferences or powerful relatives.

Strong Letter to Follow!

Jim Beers
2 July 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

Feds in Cahoots With Environmentalist With “Sue and Settle?”

“Oklahoma’s attorney general and an oil and gas industry trade group have filed a lawsuit against the federal government over its decision to settle a lawsuit with an environmental group over the listing status of several animal species.

Scott Pruitt claims in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Tulsa on Monday that federal agencies are colluding with like-minded special interest groups and using “sue and settle” tactics that violate the federal Endangered Species Act and have a “crippling effect” on the U.S. economy.

“Increasingly, federal agencies are colluding with like-minded special interest groups by using ‘sue and settle’ tactics to reach ‘friendly settlements’ of lawsuits filed by the interest groups,” Pruitt said in a statement.”<<<Read More>>>

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

Maine Fish and Game Commissioner Devises Three Fish Groups

I’m sure there are some readers who remember the Dean Martin Roasts. For those that do, perhaps you will even recall Red Buttons’ comedic act during those roasts. Buttons always came across as one holding a grudge, his most famous line being: “I never got a dinner”, as he lamented through the process of who was getting roasted and why. While all the attention was supposed to be bestowed upon the roastee, Buttons would always bemoan: “I never got a dinner”.

Perhaps some will see this article as bemoaning. I don’t, as I find nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious, raising questions and creating discourse in outdoor matters. Having said that, George Smith, independent writer and former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, wrote on his blog site on Monday, April 2, 2012, that Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) Commissioner Chandler Woodcock “Chooses Three Fisheries Groups”.

Mr. Smith points out that it appears the members of the three groups “provide a wide diversity of thought.” I would concur but that is not my bone of contention, save one. Smith also makes this comment: “Chandler [Woodcock] is making fisheries a strong focus of his tenure.”

I have no issue with Mr. Woodcock making fisheries a strong focus. No sour grapes here. What I might question is the need for three advisory groups – one for trout, one for salmon (landlocked variety) and another for bass. While I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise, I’m assuming all of these seats on these boards are voluntary. Thanks go out to those volunteers.

First, let me explain that fisheries is not my specialty. I seldom stick my little toe into fisheries issues. I’m sure there are arguments for and against the need for three fisheries advisory groups. I suppose it’s nice, like one on one attention a student might get in a classroom, for trout, salmon and bass to get special attention. One could argue that a fisherman is a fisherman is a fisherman, however, if you pay attention, you’ll find this is not true. Some fishermen spend the greatest part of their time with a focus on one particular species of fish. Perhaps then, they bring a lot to the table. But then again, I hope their focus isn’t so narrow they can’t see a bigger plan for all fisheries. Is this dynamic only manifested in fisheries?

Once again, no sour grapes here. Provided that no one specie-specific group gets preferential treatment and as such or any treatment comes at the expense of another preferred specie or discipline used for catching, perhaps lots of good can happen.

It may be too early to exclaim, “I never got a dinner”, but what about hunting and trapping. There are two very important issues here to bring up first. One is the issue that Maine hunters got several deer task forces and coyote task forces, none of which accomplished anything in the end. In addition, the deer hunters got a “Plan”. Which brings me to the second issue. We’ve already learned that, while the “Plan” sounded good to some, there was no money to do anything with the plan.

Is there money to do something with the advice from the volunteers of these three fisheries groups? If there is, where did it come from?

So, was the deer and coyote task forces (okay, let’s toss in the recent task force to figure out why nobody wants to buy game licenses in Maine.), along with Maine’s Plan for Deer, the equivalent of three fisheries groups? Or should we look for announcements to come later in the year.

I raised the concern earlier in this piece as to whether MDIFW needed three fisheries groups, i.e. one for trout, one for salmon and another for bass. If this is the new trend or Commissioner Woodcock’s disclosure of him being “serious about fisheries”, then I suspect we should see later the formation of hunting and trapping groups that also are species specific. In other words, hunter volunteers can advise the commissioner on deer, moose, bear, turkey, grouse, etc. and trappers can advise on beaver, muskrat, mink, otter, marten, bobcat, fisher, coyote, fox, etc.

Or will I not get a dinner?

I applaud Mr. Woodcock on what appears to be his attempt to reach out to the sportsmen to get them involved in fish and game issues and help in setting policy that more closely reflects the wishes of the sportsmen (I am in hopes that’s his intention.). God knows I’ve beat that drum enough times. So this is not about sour grapes. If nothing else comes from these three fisheries groups other than finally getting a collective voice in direct communication with the commissioner, then it would appear only good can come from that. That’s one giant step.

And with only that one very important accomplishment showing itself proud (I hope), then I strongly encourage Mr. Woodcock to already be thinking about his volunteer advisory groups for earmarked species for the hunters and trappers. Let’s really expand that base of communication and get those with the investment the chance to be heard, once again.

While you are at it, please don’t put anyone from Maine Audubon, the Nature Conservancy, the Humane Society of the United States or any other anti-hunting, animal rights and environmental representatives on these boards. Thank you.

I’m anxious for my dinner.

Tom Remington

Share