August 20, 2019

False Worship of Natural Restoration

Natural restoration, much like natural regulation is a false god. There can never be this idealistic existence so long as man shares “nature” with….well, nature. It was never intended that nature be left alone to its own devices. The plan has always been that man would “manage” the resources within nature for sustainable uses. From this perspective, man manipulates “nature,” sometimes very well and sometimes not so well, in order to make use of the resources our Creator provided for us.

The worship of false gods and Paganism has caused man to evolve into a blinded instrument used against the very existence of man. Centuries later, out of this Paganism, came Environmentalism, a false belief that man destroys everything and the only way resources (nature) can be preserved and protected is to prohibit man access to land and the resources within that land.

This is part of the lie of natural restoration. It is often that we hear the call for “natural restoration.” The blind irony of the false idol of, so-called, natural restoration is that there is nothing natural about it. On the one hand we have man manipulating the resource to provide sustainable use of the bounty provided within the land. On the other hand, we have man manipulating the resource in order to achieve a personal perspective of how the resource should be. The only difference is the personal agendas of each person or group of persons.

One has to ask of what use is locked up land and resources? What good can actually become of it? The resources provided to us by our Creator were intended to sustain man’s existence. To deny use of these resources, while hiding behind some false claim of restoring the land to something that resembles its “natural state,” is to deny the sustainability of man on this planet, and perhaps that is the ultimate goal.

Blind idolatry at every level results in the destruction of man.

Today I read of one man’s idea of what he thinks a certain parcel of land should be and one way in which to accomplish that desire. It involves the recent land grab, by the U.S. Government and environmentalists, of land in Maine, designated by President Obama as a National Monument, and now called Katahdin Woods and Waters.

The author of the opinion piece I was reading, said that he hoped that the primary focus of the National Park Service would be “habitat restoration.” It is but this one person’s perspective that anything needs restoring – and to what should it be “restored” to?

To accomplish this restoration, he calls for the use and protection of beavers, believing that beavers only accomplish good things in the “restoration of habitat.”

If the objective of Roxanne Quimby, former owner of the land, is habitat restoration, then why did she propose turning the land into a park? Surely a park will do more to destroy the existing habitat than multi-use without a park.

The author states that beavers, “engineer bio-diverse habitats, something they are specially evolved to do.” Where is it written that bio-diverse habitats, created by beavers, is a “natural restoration?” And who gets to say that beavers “evolved” to “engineer bio-diverse habitats?” Beavers were created, by the Almighty, as a resource for His creation of man. What’s presented by this author is but one man’s perspective on how he thinks things should be.

Of the decades I have spent in the fields and forests, I have seen places where beavers have created a different habitat over the years and often simple utter destruction. From my perspective, the destruction far out-weighs any good a so-called habitat restoration as called for would be.

There is dishonesty in all this, claiming the Scientism high ground, that keeping man off the land, benefits the land due to man’s nature to destroy everything, unless it is the man holding one’s preferred science and perspective on what the land should be used for. This is part of the destruction of the idolatry of Environmentalism. Shifting the paradigm to create a belief that man should not use and have access to natural resources makes little sense and appears as nothing but a commitment in idol worship.

So we, as a people, have to decide whether we should continue to take advantage of our resources in a responsible way, or simply shut off access and let the land be what the environmentalists want it to be? Either way requires man’s manipulation to accomplish the desired feat and thus there is absolutely nothing natural about the false claim of “natural restoration/regulation.”

Share

Dumping Deer Registration a Colossal Mistake

*Editor’s Note* – This drastic cut in deer management in Wisconsin comes at what seems to me, a really bad time. From what I have been reading, Wisconsin’s deer herd is shrinking and I’m not sure scientists have a firm understanding as to why.

But, isn’t this another example of how things are changing? None of which is for the good. Scientific management of wildlife is being replaced, even if gradually, by social regulation, i.e. shrieks and demands from Environmentalists and animal right perverts. We were told by the Environmentalists that they were going to change the way we discussed and approached wildlife management and I believe we are seeing the beginning stages of this. When a department, such as Wisconsin’s, removes pretty much the only means of gathering accurate scientific data, used to scientifically manage deer herds, the only conclusion has to be that they don’t plan on managing deer anymore, but to simply resort to “natural regulation.”

Maybe it’s time. Maybe it is time to let these idiots have their natural regulation. Let’s shut down the entire department in charge of tending to wildlife, and that includes non-game species, stay far away from anything to do with caring for the resource and let things fall where they may. Perhaps that is what it will take before intelligent people will put an end, once and for all, to this perverted, nonsensical approach to wildlife management and human control.

I hate to come off as the pessimist, but there’s really no going back on these damaging deer management decisions. The current Administration’s gutting of the Department of Natural Resources is complete (500+ jobs eliminated from the Department, including nearly all wildlife research scientists). From here on out, my beloved state of Wisconsin’s deer management program — once the epitome of sound, science-based decisions — will now be managed in much the same way other states have done it for years.

Source: Dumping Deer Registration a Colossal Mistake – Deer & Deer Hunting | Whitetail Deer Hunting Tips

Share

Coyotes: The Mythical Miracle Workers

CoyoteDeerSparPeople are needlessly being misled about large predators and the role, or lack thereof, that these large, wild carnivores play in our forests, regularly referred to as ecosystems. The term ecosystem is even misleading but I’ll leave that for another day.

I was reading a short article the other day by a self-proclaimed expert/advocate of coyotes. In this interview, the question was asked about the role coyotes can play in reintroducing wolves to Maine and regions of the Northeast. The coyote advocate says that through “education” and teaching our children about the wonderful things about coyotes, will cause our children to be more welcoming of them. This “education” evidently will include such nonsense as how important it is “to the balance of the ecosystem.”

In addition:

“Wherever wolves are not in North America, coyotes are a keystone species. So whatever animals they kill to survive, whether it’s a deer or a rodent, they affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics. They’re making those species stronger in ways that we can only glimpse the complexity of.

Their major prey are herbivores, which eat green things that other species depend on. So if you have larger herbivores, like deer, eating massive amounts of the greens that birds, butterflies, bees, and salamanders depend on, then those species go down. Foresters are concerned about the number of deer in this country, and there are very few predators for them, so what’s happening is that they’re destroying our forests.”

Every ounce of that statement is false. The coyote “expert” is labeling wolves as the “keystone species” and if there are no coyotes present, then the coyote becomes the keystone species. (Evidently bears and mountain lions don’t count?) Utter nonsense.  The term “keystone species” is a fabricated, relative term, i.e. political, that carries no actual scientific backing. Call it a human term used to influence the way people see, hear and discuss subjects such as wildlife management and the environment. Google defines “keystone species” as: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.” And what, might I ask, would the “ecosystem” “change drastically” to? The answer probably lies within someone’s ideology. Does this also mean that if a “keystone species” is added to an ecosystem, things, “would change drastically?”

Those who buy into this nonsense, want others to believe that our forests, fields, and wild animals cannot function without “keystone species,” i.e. coyotes and wolves. Their premise is based on an unscientific term that has become a household word, one that is regularly and incorrectly taught in our education factories at all levels – natural regulation, or balance of nature. This, more than likely, the result of the poor and incorrect work of an Australian ecologist, Graeme Caughley. More on this in a bit.

If we consider “balance of nature” and that a coyote is a “keystone species” that without it, “the ecosystem would change drastically,” what was going on in our ecosystems before the proliferation of coyotes and the introduction of wolves? It must have been utter chaos. How did any of us or the animals and plants survive? The same question should be asked about introducing wolves in the Northern Rockies, the Southwest and the Southeast.

How can science (real science) determine anything about “natural regulation” when they don’t understand whether wildlife is driven by food, habitat or the existence of predators, all or a combination of any? It can’t. Therefore, one can only theorize and in doing so, all elements of influence of thought become value-driven. In other words, a person or group of persons sees something a particular way based on personal value and interpretation – that value and interpretation manipulated by brainwashing and propaganda. Combine that with a perception of how they would like the ecosystem to function and we then realize the creation of nonsensical, unscientific, and romantic notions of “balanced” life among plants, animals and humans. Few can see or are willing to see, that along with these scientismistic beliefs, man is in the way and thus billions of us need to be killed in order to protect the resources. Becoming the useful idiots of Environmentalism plays right into the hands of one’s own destruction. If we could but open our eyes.

Neither a coyote nor a wolf is necessary in order that a chunk of real estate, and all that is on it, is somehow balanced. What happens is a person or group of persons decides (value driven) that any “change” that occurs, due to the introduction of wolves or coyotes, is a good thing. I guarantee others will think it’s not (value-driven). With this then comes the bombardment of utter nonsense as is demonstrated above as to what coyotes do to an ecosystem – nonsense that is fabricated, romance, fake biology.

For someone to suggest that animals and plants in an ecosystem, if man would butt out, reach some sort of equilibrium, not only does that person not understand nature itself, but are somehow placing human qualities of “social regulation” as is written above. Are we seriously to believe that a coyote eats just the right amount of deer and rodents, hand-selecting the diseased ones first, and the ones with bad genes, leaving a perfectly “balanced” and healthy population of plants and animals? In those areas where wolves and coyotes don’t exist, the ecosystems must be overrun with wild canine prey animals, with poor genes and full of disease. Are they?

Dr. Charles Kay, Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology, Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, once wrote: “Wolves [coyotes] do not socially regulate. Instead, wolves [coyotes] are in the business of turning prey animals into more wolves [coyotes] as quickly as they can without any regard for the health of prey populations.”

And the result is the wild fluctuations of prey animal species and predators, along with the “complexity” of the collateral changes. Uncontrolled large predators do not “balance” ecosystems. They are quite capable of turning them into utter chaos of scarcity, depending upon situations that exist and the influences in place.

Dr. David Mech, recognized as an authority on wolves and wolf behavior has been quoted as saying, “We would expect wolves to kill as many prey as possible. There is little for wolves to gain by being prudent about resources within their territory.”

This speaks directly to the romantic notion that coyotes, “affect the health of that species, balancing their populations, taking out the diseased ones, taking out those with weak genetics.” Wolves and coyotes, like all wild animals, eat to survive. Scientific research has determined that wolves and coyotes, kill to eat and kill for the sake of killing. They do not have the mental capacity to adapt human social agendas to their surroundings to ensure they live in a healthy ecosystem.

There are some pockets where there may possibly be too many ungulates that are actually “destroying” the forests but it is far from the norm and even in those cases, the idea of “destruction” is a value-driven, or in some cases, an economic-driven situation. Large predators must be controlled by man. That is how we can attain and sustain any semblance of “balance” – that “balance” of which is now being handled with a combination of science and social demands by the public. Demanding the protection of all animals, including predators, in search of that value-driven, natural equilibrium, is a product of political manipulation that begins with our children from the first day of life. It is a shame that they cannot be taught the truth.

We know that it is the goal of Environmentalism to change the science of wildlife management and how it is discussed. What that means is that ideology and political agendas, will take over the normal scientific process and replace it with outcome-based, post-normal scientism, which is what balance of nature is rooted in. Proven scientific research is abandoned and replaced with changed rhetoric and talking points based on ideology and other sinister plans.

When one considers the influences in our society that have most affected how people think and discuss wildlife management, and in particular that of predator wild canines, it is no wonder the public hasn’t any truthful understanding of those creature’s habits.

Dr. Kay also tells us that there where five events that took place, that because of terrible science, or the deliberate “changing of paradigms,” that have been used over the past 40 or so years that have manipulated and changed “the way we think about wildlife management.”

The five events were, 1. Farley Mowat’s book, “Never Cry Wolf” which has been proven to be a complete work of fiction. 2. Maurice Hornocker’s mountain lion study, which claimed that mountain lions had no effect on prey animals because the lions “socially regulated.” Social regulation, is of course, a myth. 3. Isle Royale’s wolf study, an event that while some elements of scientific study can be taken from the event, Isle Royale does not resemble any typical ecosystem because of it’s isolation from the rest of the world. 4. The Kaibab Deer Incident, another claim that predators had no effect on prey species. With predators removed, the mule deer population soared to over 100,000. 5. Graeme Caughley, an Australian ecologist who developed computer models to “prove” his notion that natural regulation was driven by food availability. It was proven that his modeling was unscientific and rigged to achieve a desired outcome.

Unfortunately, because his terrible work was accepted in the world of “Ecology”, Caughley co-authored a book about wildlife management – a piece of work that is still used today in universities. And we wonder why people make such ridiculous claims about coyotes.

So long as those with agendas, the power and the control, continue to teach wildlife management fiction, what hope is there for a world in which real science drives the actions?

The United States has become a society in which perverse notions exist about animals. Those notions include placing human traits and qualities on animals and thus people want to believe that animals socially adapt seeking an equilibrium with their surroundings, much like humans do. Animals are not humans and are not even closely related in any way shape or form and yet, someone believes that coyotes will do the work of men to achieve a socially desirable, “Balance of Nature.”

 

Share

Deer of Our Future

The current wildlife management programs in America are now driven by “natural regulation” and predator protection. If this continues, the below photo is about all that will be left for people to “view” for deer in their state. Add to that, elk, moose, caribou and many others.

DeerSculpture

Share