July 21, 2018

Nevada AG Will Not Enforce New Law after FBI Declines Question 1 Background Checks

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “[T]he FBI has refused to conduct background checks on transfers as required by Question 1, and Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt has confirmed that until the FBI changes their position, his office will not be enforcing the law that was set to be enacted just days from now,” Don Turner of the Nevada Firearms Coalition reported in a late Wednesday email alert.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Colorado Faces Fascist Government Dealing With Wolves

*Editor’s Note* – I’ve highlight the most relevant part of any discussion involving the spreading of GI toxic wolves across the entire landscape of the United States. We live in a fascist state where the Federal Government dictates to everyone what will be. Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and any other state can oppose wolf introduction and be damned. We operate in a rigged system of totalitarians. Expect wolves and disease on every doorstep in America once the fascists are through.

It amazes me how this corrupt government is all concerned about following the letter of the law…when it’s convenient for them and promotes their fascist regime. When it doesn’t they piss on the rule of law.

Federal officials declined to comment. They’re not required to seek state blessings as they develop a Mexican wolf recovery plan by the end of 2017 to prevent extinction.

Source: Colorado turns cold shoulder to endangered wolves – The Denver Post

Share

Nevada family’s land stolen after refusing government buyout

“We are hopeful the family will accept our final offer to purchase roughly 100 acres of owned property and about 300 acres of unpatented mine claims for $5.2 million,” said Jennifer Miller, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations said when the offer was put on the table. “We understand the landowners’ connection to the land, but we must also consider the demands of national security.

”Unfortunately, the offer was nonnegotiable (as so many things are when dealing with bureaucracy) and the federal government changed its tune after the Sheahans’ rejection.

In retaliation, federal officials condemned the Groom Mine property and ordered the family off the land. To add insult to injury, the government proclamation that the land was unsafe knocked the amount its rightful owners would be compensated (under duress) to just $1.5 million.

Source: Nevada family’s land stolen after refusing government buyout – Personal Liberty®

Share

With Obama’s help, Harry Reid leaving an indelible mark in the Nevada desert

The Democratic senator has secured federal protection for nearly 3.4 million acres over the years.

Source: With Obama’s help, Harry Reid leaving an indelible mark in the Nevada desert – The Washington Post

Share

How Predator Protection Forces Changes in Human Lifestyle

“NDOW says this time of year fruits are ripe and ready to be picked and they’re asking anyone who owns fruit trees to pick the fruit as soon as possible.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bear Enters House Twice Scared Off with Pots and Pans

Because there are too many hungry bears this time of year, a black bear came in through a screen door and ransacked a house while the woman owner was upstairs. The bear returned again a second time later that night and she says she scared the bear away with making noises with pots and pans.

The question is, did she look big?

Share

Nuclear Nevada Cows Farting Up a Crisis

So, the government isn’t going to let a fake crisis go to waste!

NuclearCows

Maybe it’s time to resurrect this fiery flatulating cow?

fartingcow

Share

The Case for a Little Sedition

“If the conservatives in official Washington want to do something other than stand by and look impotent, they might consider pressing for legislation that would oblige the federal government to divest itself of 1 percent of its land and other real estate each year for the foreseeable future through an open auction process. Even the Obama administration has identified a very large portfolio of office buildings and other federal holdings that are unused or under-used. By some estimates, superfluous federal holdings amount to trillions of dollars in value. Surely not every inch of that 87 percent of Nevada under the absentee-landlordship of the federal government is critical to the national interest. Perhaps Mr. Bundy would like to buy some land where he can graze his cattle.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Dirty Harry and Son Bringing Chinese Solar Company to Nevada

“The son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Rory Reid, is the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, a Chinese energy company seeking to build a $5 billion solar panel plant on a 9,000-acre Clark County desert plot in Laughlin, Nevada.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Is Labeling Bears a Nuisance Dangerous to Humans?

BearTrapThis morning I was reading an article found at RGJ.com about one Nevada community that is working toward providing residents, at a cost, “bear proof” garbage cans in order to reduce human/bear conflicts. While I personally believe that having “bear proof” garbage cans can help in some cases of reducing conflicts with bears, it isn’t the answer to all the bear problems.

According to the article, within a 2,200-resident Caughlin Ranch subdivision, the bear proof garbage cans will be made available at a cost to residents of $6.27 per month, or on average an increase of about 41%, depending on the type of waste service residents now hire. The use of bear proof cans is not mandatory and one has to wonder what kind of participation will occur and even in those who opt for the new containers, will they use them properly? And, without full cooperation, how effective then does the program become? (Note: I am not necessarily advocating mandatory use of bear proof garbage cans.)

This may or may not help. The reason I say that is that bears are influenced by so many things in their surroundings and normal life habits, I’m not sure people realize a bear coming and getting into your garbage is but a small part of a bear’s life. The question should always be what caused or forced the bear to seek food from a human source?

In the article, the person described as the general manager of the Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Association, said:

“I think it will definitely help,” Olson said. “What (bears) are going to realize is we’re no longer a food source. Just like they learned to come, they’re going to learn not to come.”

As I have already stated, having available bear proof garbage cans might help, but it isn’t the answer to all or even most of the “bear problems.” I doubt seriously that providing some or a lot of bear proof cans is going to teach the bears it’s a waste of time to seek out food inside of the Caughlin Ranch community. That’s because there doesn’t seem to be anyone suggesting what the real reasons bears are coming there other than the food draws them out of the woods.

That’s not really how bears operate. They much prefer “natural” food, i.e. mast crops, vegetation, fruits, etc. One thing that might force them to seek alternative sources of food, i.e. human-generated garbage, is when their is a shortage of natural food. That’s not a problem caused by not having bear proof garbage cans. Studies readily indicate that even when giving bears options between human garbage/human food or their natural diet, overwhelming bears prefer natural food.

Another bear behavior influencing factor might be that there are too many bears competing for the same amount of food or in a worse case scenario a combination of too many bears and a natural food shortage can present very serious issues.

A hungry bear is a potentially dangerous situation. What people have done, with a misinformation campaign by environmental and animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is label these bears that rummage through garbage as “nuisance” bears. The bear is not a nuisance. What the bear does, like getting into your garbage, becomes a nuisance to the people who own the garbage cans. The bear is hungry.

The entire resulting act and mislabeling creates more problems than before people tried to “help.”

Here’s a couple of examples: Protectors of bears often say that hunting seasons on bear does nothing to stop the “nuisance” bears. Their thinking is that hunters don’t hunt these wrongly labeled “nuisance” bears. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not a “nuisance” bear is a new subspecies of black bears or grizzly or polar bears? Where did these bears come from if not out of the woods? Are they a subspecies of bear that is born, lives, hibernates, eats, dens, sleeps, and never sees the depths of the forest, all within ear shot of housing developments like Caughlin Ranch?

It is true bears prefer their natural food selections. If too many bears are competing for not enough food, an overall reduction of bears can provide less competition and bears, generally speaking, will return to the forest and/or stay there and never come out. Some may think this idealistic thinking but it’s not. Yes, there are always exceptions to everything and even with well-structured bear management plans, there are still bound to be some conflicts.

When bears are labeled “nuisance” bears, this can falsely give people the wrong idea that bears, regardless of what we have been told by some, and regardless of whether or not they have become “humanized” or “desensitized” to humans, they are a wild and big animal and can be extremely dangerous to humans under the right circumstances; many of those circumstances we humans don’t understand. To teach people that bears are “more afraid of us” or that they are “intelligent” and “sensitive” creatures is wrong on many levels, say nothing about irresponsible.

Perhaps an example of this can be found in the photographs provided in the article that I linked to above. In the first three photos, we can see a bear trap, on a trailer, on the back of a pick-up truck with the door opened. A bear is about to be released back into the forest. The caption says that officials with the Nevada fish and game are going to use “aversion training” in hopes of “teaching” the bear that humans are not nice people. They are about to use rubber bullets and dogs to chase and frighten the bear away. This isn’t really a problem and is often done by many fish and game officials. However, upon examination of the photos, to the right of the trap, left in the picture, a man is squat down, holding one of the pursuit dogs and next to him a small child.

In photos number 2 and 3, we see a man with what appears to be a rifle pointed in the general direction of the first man, dog and child. We can assume he is preparing to fire rubber bullets at the bear as the bear runs away. To the left of the man with the rifle, can be seen, in the back of another pick-up truck, an adult and another small child.

Is this all that responsible? Have even these “professionals” lost sight of the fact that regardless of any situation, a bear can raise some serious trouble. Have these men and the many citizens been unknowingly brainwashed to think bears are something they are not? Are bears now just a “nuisance” and not a wild animal that needs to be responsibly feared and respected? Isn’t labeling a bear a “nuisance” an attempt at putting human traits and characteristics on a wild animal? Isn’t this then a reflection of a lack of knowledge and understanding of wild bears?

I recall a series of photographs that made its way around cyberspace several years ago. A photographer was at a distance and planned to photograph the release of a grizzly bear from a barrel trap that was located in the back of a ranger’s pick-up truck. What the photographer captured was a series of pictures showing the bear jumping out of the barrel, turning, jumping up into the back of the truck and attacking the man who opened the door to let the bear go free. The man suffered some serious cuts but was okay. We just cannot always and consistently predict what wild animals will do.

Only time will tell how effective this Nevada community’s effort will be. It is hoped that nobody gets injured and it would be nice if people, especially the experts and the media outlets, would think a bit more about what they say and the words we use to label wild animals. Words can easily “desensitize” humans about bears.

Share