I was sent a link to an article about the woes of Wisconsin in places where someone gets to say there are too many deer and that having “too many” deer is not good for the forest and may even promote disease in animals and people. Whose perspective is right? Who gets to decide how it should be?
Perhaps the work written of in this article is all, mostly, or some or not true. Who is to say really. We read it as working class stiffs and either agree with it because it fits into our own narratives conveniently, or dispel it because it doesn’t. So what’s the problem?
If there are too many deer, who gets to make that determination and on what basis do they use to decide? The researcher in focus says that where there are “too many” deer, it’s not good for the forests. Who says?
In reality, one has to wonder how much of any of all this discussion would even be happening if our society hadn’t turned into one of hatred of man and preferred affection of animals? There was a day, really not that long ago, when it was never questioned about why game managers were manipulating herds to the benefit of consumers/hunters. Yes, people needed and wanted deer meat to eat. It was not questioned. It was actually encouraged…if today’s young, progressives can believe that.
Today, it’s a different story. Hatred, greed, anger, radical animal protection has turned the table. When you combine all of this with money available to carry out the scientism of outcome-based studies that will be used to prop up environmentalists’ groups, used to sustain their onslaught of money-making lawsuits, is there anything left that at all resembles true scientific processes?
To somebody, Wisconsin has too many deer. To others, there’s not enough. To somebody, the number of deer that exist are damaging the forest. To others, what exists is normal. But the real question should be looked at from whose perspective these statements are being created? And who gets to decide?
What I see, mixed in with all the greed and corruption, are entities like the forest industry buying whatever “research” they can afford to protect their working forests. This is not unlike hunting organizations wishing to protect the very game they desire to chase which happens to be a very lucrative industry in its own right. Toss in the billions of dollars spent by well-funded environmental groups and it’s a war.
Was it always this way? It seems that before Environmentalism reared its extremely ugly, hate-filled head in the 1970s, the forest industry and the hunting industry go along quite well. This union was also readily accepted by society as part of American Heritage.
As has become the norm, money talks and $#!% walks. Money and greed can get you anything you want because there’s enough greed to go around. Perhaps the researchers are doing their work rooted in their own brainwashed and propagandized perspectives and don’t see the corruption behind it all. We either accept it or reject it and whoever gets the most support in numbers and money, wins.
What a life!
Ecosystem Management is True Believerism
There’s an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (behind a pay wall) calling for the U.S. Government to end the current method of managing the government’s land booty and create a forest charter institution, like those being used in charter schools in this country.
The author, Robert H. Nelson, a professor of environmental policy at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., says of the current and evolved forest management practices:
Ecological goals? That’s a nice way of putting the idealistic desires, the result of many years of constant brainwashing by education czars from Tavistock, of “True Believers.” For those who don’t read here regularly, a “True Believer” (TBer) is a term I use that comes from Eric Hoffer’s book, The True Believer. The TBer blindly believes and follows the masses because they have some overwhelming need, real or falsely created, to be part of a cause or a movement. This generally results from a person who has an inordinate dislike of themselves and thinks they can resolve that issue by belonging to something, i.e. becoming a True Believer.
Ecosystem Management is an inaccurate term used by those members of the Environmental Movement, which it appears the author of the WSJ piece is a part of. An ecosystem in nothing more than a collective term used to label something that exists that others want to control. Non thinkers have been convinced an ecosystem is some kind of well-oiled machine that can only screw up when man is present. It’s convenient idealism, cloaked in nonsense, swallowed up by True Believers who become useful idiots for the Totalitarian government that now exists; one that takes everything from the people and distributes to whomever government believes worthy. Kind of sounds just like Communism, doesn’t it?
Because ecosystem management could not exist without the “True Believers”, it is now a matter of record that the overwhelming majority of those who desire to run everybody’s lives, do so from the comfort of their urban dwellings. Ignorant, but well brainwashed in the falsities of “ecosystem management” and the dark despair that man places upon the ecosystem, “True Believers” blindly beat their government-provided drums that forestland and the creatures living in them, must be left alone to their mythologies of self-regulation. They believe they have this right don’t you know. I suppose this must be one of those “ecosystem goals” written about in the WSJ.
Crammed into their non-functioning brains, between text messaging, television, smoking dope and mentally ejaculating with Facebook, these robots believe they are entitled to destroy everything good in our heritage and replace it with garbage – their filthy garbage.
It is these actions, of demands for predator protections, destruction of hunting heritage and trapping of furbearers, that keeps this nation in a constant state of turmoil; a created tool of the ruling class.
From multiple use, to ecosystem management, now it is suggested that the Federal lands be managed like charter schools. This is nothing more than dressing up a government pig in different clothing and then convincing the same non thinkers, the “True Believers” that this is good and above all it WORKS.