July 21, 2019

Too Many Deer? Not Enough Forest? Who Gets to Decide?

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!

Share

Court Rules in Favor of Active Forest Management

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied claims by several environmental groups and ruled in favor of a habitat management project in southwestern Montana.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and several other partners filed an amicus brief in support of the U.S. Forest Service and several other federal agencies.

“We have seen environmental groups file frivolous litigation time and time again seeking to thwart efforts designed at improving wildlife habitat and overall forest health. That is the case here,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “We appreciate the court’s ruling and look forward to the implementation of this needed habitat stewardship work.”

The East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Management project is a landscape project in the Pintler Ranger District on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest designed to improve forest health and reduce sedimentation in the headwaters of the Clark Fork River.

The vast majority of lodgepole pine trees in this immediate area are dead. Many of them are already on the ground. Without forest management treatment in the near future, the forest floor will be covered with combustible material that will also impede the growth of shrubs and grasses needed by elk, deer and other wildlife.

The project calls for the removal of pine beetle-killed timber, forest thinning to reduce conifer encroachment and other treatments on riparian areas to protect and improve watersheds that will enhance both fish and wildlife habitat.

“RMEF maintains litigation reform is necessary in order to allow agencies tasked with managing our forests the ability to implement active forest management that is so badly needed all across elk country,” added Henning.

Share

Logging, intentional fires planned in Superior National Forest to improve moose habitat

*Editor’s Note* – Well, I’m confused but that probably doesn’t surprise many of you. Last time I checked Minnesota officials said there was little to be done about saving the state’s moose herd because “global warming” was causing everything imaginable that might work against the moose herd…including the defeat of Hillary Clinton last November.

Using the circular reasoning of unreasoned circular nonsensical clap-trap, isn’t cutting down forests contributing to global warming which in turn kills off the moose herd?

“Twenty years ago the Superior National Forest was criticized for allowing loggers to cut too many trees, especially too many large swaths of forest.

Environmental groups and others contended that so-called clear-cuts were more than just an aesthetic eyesore, but that they contributed to monocultures of small aspen trees and disrupted wildlife that depended on thick, mature forests of big, old trees.

The Forest Service responded by cutting back on cutting.

Flash-forward a couple decades, however, and plans to cut more and larger swaths of trees are getting high praise. Wildlife biologists and others say more logging and more fire are the only hope for Minnesota’s dwindling moose herd.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Frank Murkowski Lives on a One-Way Street

Former Governor of Alaska and U.S. Senator, Frank Murkowski, in a rant about environmentalist lawsuits to stop timber harvesting in portions of Alaska, seems to invoke “balance of nature” in one breath about wolves, while holding his breath about “balance of nature” in the next.

In the Juneau Empire he writes:

To try to link timber harvest with reduction in deer population and thus a decline in the wolf population is nothing more than a fabricated argument to stop logging. If environmentalists really wanted to increase wolves they would instead support the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s proposal to reduce the cap allowing hunters to take 60 wolves per year. This would directly and immediately increase both deer and wolf populations. But, there is a balance in nature — an increase in wolves will result in a decrease in deer. The wolves will then move to where there are more deer. Logging has little to do with nature’s balancing in this regard.

If Murkowski is employing the “balance of nature” myth as it pertains to predator/prey relationships in order to protect timber harvesting, intimating that if man just left it alone it would be alright, then certainly if ecosystems balance themselves out then there is no need for timber and forest management (timber harvesting) other than the greed of consumptive use…right?

Perhaps there’s a need to better polish the argument here. Or double check with the Council on Foreign Relations and make sure he has his talking points right.

Share

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:

In part, a philosophical shift is to blame for these terrible records [forest and forest fire management]. During the 1990s, the Forest Service’s old philosophy of “multiple use management” of forests was succeeded by a new outlook of “ecosystem management.” This placed ecological goals above more utilitarian considerations, resulting in a radical curtailing of timber harvesting, forest thinning and other more aggressive actions that would have helped to address the continuing fire problem.

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.

Share