September 17, 2019

Philosophical Shift in the Way the State Views Wildlife

As if it is needed, we have further proof that we are overcome by a Totalitarian Scientific Dictatorship.

In an article I read recently (linked to below) it appears the author voiced some concern over the most recent resignation of wildlife Commissioner Jim Kellogg in California. With his “retirement” and previous resignation of other members of the commission, the author suggested this act, “could put the finishing touches on a sweeping philosophical shift in the way the state views wildlife.” (emboldening added)

Scientism rules. It is part of the Totalitarian Scientific Dictatorship. To understand this, one has first to understand Scientism. Def – “Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most “authoritative” worldview or the most valuable part of human learning – to the exclusion of other viewpoints.” This can be more easily defined as the hijacking of the real scientific method, changing its meaning (paradigm) and creating what scientismists like to call, new knowledge, for the purpose of fulfilling selfish and perverted romantic idealism. This becomes nicely wrapped up in totalitarianism with, “the exclusion of other viewpoints.” I might remind readers that this “exclusion” eventually results in prosecution, imprisonment and death.

For those who have been following along, this should not come as news. While the author of the linked-to article expresses some “concern,” what is taking place there is a planned event. It was determined long ago to infiltrate every conceivable level of wildlife management for the sole purpose to destroy the wildlife management model and create a, “sweeping philosophical shift” in every fish and wildlife agency and outdoor organization in America and in actuality, the world. Open your eyes. It’s everywhere and is not confined to wildlife management. The infiltration is predominant at every level of our lives.

I brought up this subject in my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” I wrote, “So, why then is it some are crying out for a new understanding about animals? And what is the purpose of seeking a paradigm shift? What’s to understand that is somehow now new? If after centuries we have failed to grasp solid “understanding” of animals and the roles they play in our lives, what hope do we have in our future? Is a “new understanding” going to seriously change what becomes of the animals themselves? Probably not in the way some think it will, but I can assure you a “new understanding and paradigm shift” will certainly change the behavior of humans.”

And that is the whole point! It isn’t about wildlife, animals, flora and fauna. It’s about changing the behavior of humans.

The actions in California are far beyond concern. What we are seeing is the result of careful and systematic planning. Once scientismists, with their perverted ideals, have finished the takeover of wildlife management, there will be nothing left for the hunters, fishermen, trappers, hikers, bikers, tenters, campers, and so on. Don’t think so? Many who advocate for a “sweeping philosophical shift” are hikers, bikers, tenters, and campers and don’t think that the scientismist worshipers have them in their cross-hairs. Better think deep and hard and open your eyes.

“The sudden resignation of the most adamant defender of hunting and fishing on the California Fish and Game Commission could put the finishing touches on a sweeping philosophical shift in the way the state views wildlife, sets rules for fishing and controls predators like mountain lions and wolves.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Three Questions About the Ethics of Wildlife Management

*Editor’s Note* – The below opinion piece is a classic example of ignorance as it pertains to wildlife management. That ignorance is driven by emotional nonsense of “ethics,” and “values.”

The author claims that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) manages wildlife from the perspective of “the end justifies the means.” He bases this incomplete thought process on what appears to be a belief that the MDIFW manages game animals strictly for the purpose of harvest. Harvest is only one part of the North American Wildlife Management Model. This is reflected in the agency’s efforts in controlling and limiting harvest numbers in all game species when necessary. It is dishonest to lead people to believe MDIFW’s call for harvest of game is to appease the hunters because they buy licenses. I know of no hunters or trappers who would promote any fish and game agency to recklessly allow unrestricted harvest simply to pay the bills.

The author’s revelation of how he enjoys “hearing” coyotes and that hunting and trapping of coyotes is strictly for the purpose of protecting deer for hunters, is ignorant and dishonest.

It would appear that the author espouses to a “natural balance” – a false theory that if man would simply butt out of wildlife management all things would be in perfect balance. That simply is not true. I guarantee that if that practice was employed, it wouldn’t be long before people would realize the results are extremely undesirable.

Too many coyotes destroy far more than deer and they also carry and spread many diseases – many of them harmful and some deadly to humans.

The third complaint this author has is that managing wildlife makes wildlife less wild. I would concur that idea carries some merit depending upon the level to which such wildlife/habitat manipulation is taking place. However, if anyone is going to get on that wagon, then they must also stay on that wagon to argue against the introduction or reintroduction of all wildlife, in all locations, for all reasons.

If, for example, stocking Atlantic salmon fry in attempts to restore a robust salmon population, makes one believe the fish are no longer wild but farmed, then the Federal Government has no business introducing/reintroducing wolves or any other species or subspecies. It also should not be allowed to protect one species at the detriment of others, including the species of man.

Realism often gets in the way of idealism. While the author in question here certainly has the right to his opinions about wildlife management, that right doesn’t carry over in order to force another’s lifestyle and supposed “ethics” onto the others.

I see much of wildlife management within the MDIFW as a win/win trade-off. The author seems to take issue with the idea that hunters harvest game. I believe it’s a small price to pay for an idealist in order that the overwhelming costs of being good stewards of our wildlife, is taken up by those willing to cough up the money in exchange for some meat in the freezer or some extra cash to help pay the bills.

MDIFW is not infallible. As a matter of fact, I could present a real good argument that much of what MDIFW does is more in line with the desires of this opinion-piece author.

Bears and coyotes do destroy a lot of deer over the course of time and is partly responsible for a deer herd that is sparse and struggling to recover in some areas. If MDIFW’s only concern was providing deer for hunters, they would have killed a lot more bear and coyotes than is the case.

Game species (deer) trump non-game species (coyotes) because the sale of licenses is the agency’s primary source of income.  If the agency were funded out of the general fund and license fees were not dedicated revenues, the agency would obviously need to be responsive to a broader constituency than just consumptive users.  For economists, this is a phenomenon we see in the public sector termed regulatory capture.  An interest group (consumptive wildlife users in this case) employs some technique to “captur

Source: Three Questions About the Ethics of Wildlife Management | Stirring the Pot

Share

European Carnivores: Idealism, Romance Biology and Refusal to Believe History

“Many conflicts persist, and some are escalating. Finding solutions is going to require patience, ingenuity and a willingness to make compromises. Although research can provide some guidance, there is going to be a lot of trial and error because quite simply this experiment has never been tried before. For almost the entirety of human history we have been at a state of war with these species. We are now trying to find a way to coexist with them, although nobody knows how this coexistence is going to look in the end. Who could resist being a part of such a process?”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Idealism: Keep Politicians Out of Wildlife Policy Decisions

politicssuckNot only is it idealism, it’s fools play to actually think that anyone can keep politicians out of wildlife policy decisions. This is not going to happen and never has. It’s also one of the reasons politics AND environmentalism are so deeply rooted into wildlife policy decisions. It may be a problem that there exists too many outdoor enthusiasts who think just as Craig Dougherty, at Outdoor Life, in an opinion piece, when he expresses that:

I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the last person I want making wildlife policy is a politician. This is especially true when it comes to making major decisions on how wildlife and the future of hunting should be managed.

Well, dang! Get in line Bubba! There’s nothing I would like any more than to tell politicians to get to hell out of wildlife management and my life as a whole. As a matter of fact, those readers who know my work understand that I would like to see politicians just get to hell out…..period!

But this is idealistic poppycock. It is also one of many reasons I began writing back over a decade ago about hunting, fishing, trapping, the outdoors in general and how politics and politicians were screwing it all up. Sticking one’s head in the sand stating they are not going to contact their representative because they don’t want them involved in wildlife politics will accomplish nothing. For those who vote, try voting for somebody who believes as you do.

I despise politics in wildlife management! I’m partial to the North American Wildlife Management Model and managing game animals for surplus harvest. When politics control wildlife policy decisions, these two policies get flushed down the toilet. And we, as the real conservationists, the outdoor sportsman, are supposed to bang our heads on the floor and refuse to play anymore?

I think someone needs a time out.

But this opinion writer is not alone and it’s a shame really. The other day I was visiting a message board that I check into from time to time to see what’s going on in the trapping world. What appeared to me to be a young person, posted a question about a particular species’ trapping season but qualified his/her question by first stating that he/she didn’t want anybody offering an answer that had anything to do with politics. Isn’t that like me telling you to go to Washington and find an honest person?

This, in and of itself, I found troubling but it got even worse. It took a while for the conversation to get rolling there but eventually this young person revealed that they planned to be a “fur bearer biologist” and that he/she didn’t like politics, etc. etc. Boy, is this person in for a rude awakening.

Money, greed and politics are all mightily engrained into our lifestyle in America. I contend that, for many, perhaps like Mr. Dougherty, it’s much easier to escape to the fields and streams and wish it would all go away. But it will not and if more and more people like Dougherty and this young, aspiring fur-bearer biologist, don’t recognize reality and/or are not willing to address it, what hope is there left that there will be anything left to hunt, fish, trap, etc.?

Dougherty says that he would support an “agency” person within fish and wildlife over a politician.

…when it comes to actually writing the regulations and setting deer policy, I’ll take the agency guy over a politician every time.

I understand the attempt at somehow separating writing wildlife policy from the politicians but for the most part isn’t the entire structure of a fish and game department political? Someone has to hire the biologists, the wardens, the commissioner, etc. Don’t be so naive to think that politics aren’t involved at the initial hiring. Some would argue that state regulations protect those hired so the next political hack that arrives at the door can’t fire them for political reasons. That doesn’t change the fact that politics played a role from the initial hiring and always will. All that has changed is the party in power.

Perhaps instead of choosing the role of running away, someone with this kind of frustration should become more involved. Get involved in finding ways to structure fish and game department guidelines to ensure that politicians and their filth and grime cannot and does not micro manage the department. But don’t forget that there will come a time when you will need the power of being able to run to your favorite politician and beg for help. It always happens. Don’t weave your own noose!

Share

George Monbiot: For more wonder, rewild the world

watchvideo150Isn’t it amazing that an environmental writer/activists, can gather together people in order to spread his idealistic propaganda that he has selectively taken from outcome-based science and presented it as something amazing. And the people listening probably are believing every word of it.

All old topics of rewilding, trophic cascades and far out myths of how wolves change the paths of streams, while leaping tall buildings in a single bound.

Share