June 30, 2015

In Washington, Some Mourn The Arrival Of New Fish and Game Director

UnsworthMore than forty years have passed since the real growth of environmentalism in this country began and as a result, we are now witness to the second and third generations of post-normal, conservation wildlife scientists, presenting little hope for sound or consumptive wild game use.

To rousing ovations of many in Idaho, their deputy director of the Fish and Game Department (IDFG), Dr. Jim Unsworth, departed the Gem State to take over the head seat at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). To many in Washington, who have been following the wolf introduction disaster, seeing Unsworth as their new director is worse than a Tippecanoe curse. But obviously to the committee that selected Unsworth, he was their match made in heaven.

Should Washington residents fear Unsworth’s selection by committee, “a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW”, because it was a terrible choice? There were eight candidates and that field was narrowed to four, ultimately opting for Unsworth. For some this makes their skin crawl.

More than likely there probably wasn’t anybody any better or with different values to choose from. A true “Manchurian Candidate” would have been trained specifically for one purpose. In this case and cases all across this nation, the “Manchurians” are products of a “Manchurian” education system. The rigged system was created to pump out candidates just like Unsworth. It’s nearly impossible to escape the result. The same rigged system was designed to produce members of committees that will select candidates from the rigged system. And finally, the rigged system forms the masses to follow blindly along. In truth, most people just don’t know what’s going on.

From the years that I have covered wolf and other wildlife issues in the state of Idaho, I’m not sure I recall a statement made in a government document that upset outdoor sportsmen any more than one that Jim Unsworth was a part of. In a 1993 document, Elk Management in the Northern Region: Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions, a report completed by Unsworth and two other colleagues, it reads:

We recognize now that elk are part of a bigger picture and that elk habitat management must be placed within the context of ecosystem management, biodiversity, State management strategies and goals, and shifting public demand and interest that now embrace nonconsumptive and consumptive interests.

Sportsmen often pay lip service to such issues as fish and game departments catering to environmentalists and their desire to end hunting, trapping and fishing, but when we see it put to writing that the paradigm is and has shifted toward non consumptive wildlife management, it’s enough to make maggots climb a small, thin rope. Dr. Valerius Geist calls “ecosystem management” with the goal of “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity”, as “intellectual rubbish.”

The reality is that Dr. Jim Unsworth is perhaps a second generation product of post-normal wildlife management taught to him by such conservation romance biologists as Dr. James Peek. Yes, America is witness to the fruits of its labor. While outdoor sportsmen enjoyed time in the wild, away from the hustle and bustle of the nasty world now comprised of “changing the way we talk about wildlife”, the nasty world made the change that took place and it appears it has taken the introduction of wolves, forced onto the landscape of human settlement to give some pause to ask how that all happened. Isn’t it just a bit too late?

In my newest book, Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?, I spend a great deal of time explaining how American citizens were sold the biggest con job until Obamacare was thrust upon us much in the same manner. I’ll talk more of that in a moment.

Jim Unsworth was a student of Dr. James Peek. If you want a greater understanding of what Unsworth was subjected to as a student of wildlife management, try reading this and this.

However, the likes of the new-science, wildlife scientist shouldn’t come as a surprise. We were warned about the coming destruction. In The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 47, Jan.-Mar. 2012 edition, editor George Dovel subtitled his central article as: “Review What Has Happened Since 1990 When the IAFWA Hired Bird-Watchers and Other Predator Preservationists to Replace Public Hunting in North America.

Dovel writes:

The Washington, D.C. – based international group that once represented the interests of state Fish and Game agencies by lobbying Congress and the President for them, is now their master. Although it chose to drop the word “International” from its name in order to sound “more friendly” to the North American hunters and fishermen it once supported, the “Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies” even added the State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China to the long list of federal agency members it represents.

In 1990, IAFWA hired non-hunting bird watcher Naomi Edelson to establish non-consumptive wildlife
recreation as all state F&G agencies’ number one priority. This shocking violation of the law in many states was ignored by commissioners and biologists.

In July of 1990, IDFG Research Biologist (now Deputy Director) Jim Unsworth wrote a 1991-95 elk plan based on the IAFWA directive which blatantly violated Idaho Wildlife Policy in Idaho Code Sec 36-103. That 74-year-old law clearly states that wild animals, wild birds and fish within the state of Idaho shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated and managed to provide continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.

Yet the introduction to Unsworth’s Elk Plan said:

“Although this document is called an Elk Management Plan, it is really the plan of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (hereafter called the Department) for managing the many and varied impacts of people upon wildlife and wildlife habitat.

“…The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the
maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not
necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”

We also get a glimpse into a few things upon examination of an interview Unsworth did in 2009 for Idaho Public Television.

Based on information provided in this interview, Jim Unsworth must have been with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game around 15 years, when he told in his 2009 interview that:

The day they brought them [wolves] in, I was in the Middle Fork with some other Fish and Game folks. We were counting elk and deer, and we had just finished up for the day, and we were on the Thomas Creek airstrip, and getting ready to head back to the cabin and have dinner. All of a sudden a bunch of fixed wings started landing, and here they were, dropping wolves off. None of us that were there counting elk even knew that this was going to happen.

Seriously? As much national attention as was given the introduction of wolves into this region and a 15-year biologist, who eventually became deputy director, didn’t know this was going to happen? While champagne was being uncorked, employees of the IDFG knew nothing? There must have been some very big secret being kept under wraps. I wonder what that could have been? (wink – wink)

And there was this:

And so, I remember sitting there on the airstrip with some of the guys I was working with, and we’d just spent a week counting –- looking at one of the most remarkable elk herds in the world, and looking at these wolves that they had dropped off.

And as a biologist, I was thinking, Whoa, this will be interesting! I mean, we have an incredibly abundant food source here, and a new top predator, and I wonder what’s going to happen.

I’m guessing that as little as Unsworth claimed he was aware of wolf introduction and what was going to happen to the elk populations, those behind the introduction were lying like well-worn rugs in a house of ill repute, claiming they knew wolves wouldn’t have any impact on elk herds.

In this interview, Unsworth sounds as though he is pretty balanced in his outlook and perspective on wolves and wolf management and maybe even wildlife management in general. However, if you pay attention, you will read indications of his personal perspective of non consumptive wildlife management. It appears as though, even as he might be passing himself off as a hunter, he doesn’t really care if those hunting opportunities are taken away from hunters. He prefers to address the issue by stating that the elk moved and it’s up to the hunters to change their habits.

You will also read this:

Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life, for lots of people. That’s where they get their winter’s food. A lot of people don’t understand that, that are back east watching. They like the idea of wolves, and how everything’s happening out here, but I think they miss the people part of this whole equation. They miss the impact that these wolves are having just on local guys wanting to go out, recreate and feed their family for the winter. People miss that.

Which brings us back to the remarkable con job of wolf introduction. I’m sorry Mr. Unsworth but it wasn’t just those people “back east watching” that didn’t care one iota that, “Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life,” not one little bit. Again, in reference to my book, Wolf” What’s to Misunderstand? I point out that every human element in the discussion of the impact of wolves in the Environmental Impact Statement was deliberately left out. That was in 1994 and this interview was in 2009 and evidently in that 15-year period, he and others like him still haven’t caught on.

The only real important issue about wolf introduction and present wolf management IS the human element. As Unsworth even points out, why did officials in 1993 deliberately avoid having to seriously address those elements?

But that is the power of new-science, post normal, wildlife management, brainwashing. It matters not whether there exists any scientific evidence, all based upon the scientific model that once worked pretty darn good. No, it’s now all about outcome-based science, developed and passed on by “change agents” whose minds were filled with idealistic nonsense and they believe it. This is the rigged system. What we are seeing is nothing more than a product of that rigged system.

Perhaps Unsworth was the best choice for Washington; a clone with all the right talking points. Those who sit on the governor’s hand-selected committee to vet a new director, I’m sure were all selected with the same principles that George Dovel told us were underway; that wildlife management would be done by bird watchers and environmentalists who are more concerned about kicking us off our lands and “their” lands, while managing for scarcity, than they are about real wildlife conservation with abundance for all.

It will not be until we, as a society, figure out how the progression of these “propaganda fantasies” started and how to stop it, that we can once again find fish and game directors, and a staff full of real biologists, that understand the difference between truth and fantasy.

If you figure out how to stop it then the challenge will become how do you re manufacture the clogged mands?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Experience Vs. Romance Biology

A letter writer from Morristown, New Jersey, has a piece in MyCentralJersey.com in which he reluctantly says that the recent attack by a black bear on a Rutgers University student in a park/preserve, was predictable. He claims he has sent “at least” 12 letters since 2007 warning that this event would occur under present bear policy.

Bob Guinter brings up a few good points. The first is in response to a person from the Sierra Club continuing to claim that black bears are docile, timid and afraid of humans.

…after spending over 10,000 hours in the North woods of Maine at my uncle’s wilderness cabin…, My experience is different. Black bears are unpredictable and they are both scavengers and predators as circumstances allow. Perhaps those who believe they are docile and afraid of people simply choose to ignore behaviors they exhibit commonly in their indigenous environment where they are at the top of the food chain.

The second point is in response to a claim that bears become aggressive, slowly over time, because they learn that humans are a source for food.

During my time of hiking and fishing the East Branch of the Penobscot River, it was a rare event to see another human; sometimes not seeing anyone outside of camp for weeks at a time. Yet bear encounters with them exhibiting aggressive behavior toward humans were common. There, they only seemed afraid of anything in the fall when the hunting-dogs were running.

This is perhaps a very good example of romance biology versus actual experience. In this day and age where real science has been shown the door and replaced with computer models and romantic theories, rooted in nonsensical idealism, what we are seeing here is the fruit of that planting.

The masses of people have been propagandized. Some may think propaganda a harsh term in this instance but when you consider that the definition states that it’s bad information being used to promote a cause or belief, it surely fits nicely. The problem here is that this propagandizing has been taking place at all levels of society for a very long time. The result is too many people have never been taught the real truth. Nobody wants to admit they were lied to and that what they believe is false. It’s like admitting a weakness, like alcoholism or drug addiction.

The real loser in all of this nonsense of “new understandings” is the beneficial-to-all scientific community. A true scientific method involves the advancement of a hypothesis. Real scientists then choose to discover if such a hypothesis holds validity. Changes to the hypothesis begin and over time, what was once a mere theory, begins to have credibility – not the lie we have been fed that “the science is settled.” Such a statement, as has been used with climate change, is completely dishonest and borders on criminal.

Today’s new science, called by some “scientism” creates computer models based on an ideology or political agenda. Money is injected and what once was a tried system of peer review, has become a support system propped up with money and promises to arrive at a desired outcome.

Unfortunately for all of us, we are left having to decide who we should believe. The result being this divide pitting totalitarian-minded people, armed with propaganda, attempting to force the rest of society to follow their ideological beliefs, through such things as voter referendums. How does this at all resemble a credible scientific process?

In the letter written that I’ve linked to above, the writer wants to know how the person with the Sierra Club can state that, “bears are usually docile and are more afraid of people than we are of them.” He asks, “How does he know?” And therein lies the difference between knowledge and understanding, through real experience, and fabricated propaganda being used to promote an agenda.

It’s really not all the far away from the story of the two guys who had hiked back into the wilderness to do some fishing and are being chased out of the woods by an attacking bear. One man says, “I don’t think I can outrun this bear!” The other man replies, “I know I can’t. I just need to outrun you.”

Which man is dealing with truth?

EBranchPenobscot

New-Science Wildlife Scientists Available For Free Download

Dear Readers:

After composing the seven-part series, “New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House”, I took the time to neatly (with a little editing) put the seven parts into one 19-page document. It is now available at Tom Remington’s E-Book Library as a FREE download – available in 3 formats (PDF, TXT, and ODT).

Please visit this page and get your copy as well as share it with other people.

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part II

It is not my intention to foist all the blame for terrible, ridiculous, confusing, misleading and down right poor wildlife management on wildlife science graduates of our universities because that is only part of the picture. It is imperative to keep in mind the entire picture, for the work the new-science scientists are doing would not be working – meaning they are getting away with it – if you and I had not been “trained” to accept it; much like preparing a great Thanksgiving dinner and having no table or guests prepared to eat it.

This concept is probably confusing to most because they cannot see themselves as not holding truth. Most all Americans have knowledge of varying degrees but what is the root of that knowledge? Recently in a mild discussion I had with a friend, I posed the following thought in order to catch a reaction: “Suppose for a moment, if you will, that most everything you have been taught since the day you were born was a lie.”

I got mostly a blank stare and that came as no surprise. After all, who wants to discover they are living a lie? Just think about what that would mean and soon you find how terrifying such an epiphany would be and you want to quickly retreat to the familiar comforts of the environment that’s been created for you.

Let’s return to the list I mentioned in Part I. That was the list of all the things that you believe made America great. That list will vary by generations as the younger our American citizens are, the less they know of what did make America great. If you’ve made a list, whether real or in you mind, on that list you may have included a few things that I talked about in Part I.

I briefly touched on the following:

1.) Our inalienable, God-given rights
2.) The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
3.) A citizenry (sportsmen) who care enough to protect a resource

and to this list, as it pertains to hunting, trapping, fishing, etc., we can add:
4.) Outdoor heritage
5.) The increase in strength of the family unit for those in the outdoors together
6.) The freedom to access land for outdoor recreation
7.) Our access to game resources, i.e. management of wildlife to create a sustainable yield.

I am sure you can add to this list but let’s not miss the point. If these are some of the things that made America great, and I wanted to change and/or destroy that, I simply have to attack each one. If this American heritage and culture were deeply engrained into our society, one might expect it would be difficult to one day just say, “No more hunting, trapping and fishing!” That’s not how it’s done. It’s done one step at a time. A painstaking method of changing the thought processes of the people; all the people.

In looking at my list, I would need to teach people that our rights come from man, meaning governments and that there is no God; that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is only designed for evil men who like to kill things to prove their manhood; that the family unit is invaluable and the identity of that unit must be changed; that sportsmen are selfish, irrational killers of innocent animals; that times have changed and there is no need for a heritage grounded in the outdoors; that the family has better things to do, like go to movies, play computer games, cellphones, sex, drugs, etc.; that land belongs to the government and government decides who can access it and when.

Haven’t many of these things already taken place? And we wonder what is happening to our heritage? Unfortunately, because we are all products of the same education/indoctrination/brainwashing system, we fail to even ask why? Who? What? When? Where? How?

What things in this country have influence over you and your children? Again, along with your list of things that made America great, draft another list of the things in your life that have influence over you and your children/family and friends. It may look something like this:
1.) Parents
2.) Friends
3.) God/Church
4.) School/teachers
5.) Television
6.) Music
7.) Books
8.) Sports
9.) A mentor

Have you ever asked yourself who has control over each of these things? Is it you and I? Have you ever considered that perhaps someone or something has control over all of them and their plan is to change and/or destroy all of those things that made our nation great and along with it, the destruction of our heritage?

Many years ago, the world was very large. We and our children didn’t have access to instant information. Our children spent the majority of their time at home with family, having meals together, learning together, working together, playing together, etc. and the parents, having spent the most time with their kids, had the most influence over them. That no longer is the case. Schools, television, computer games, cellphones, music, etc. are the big influences. If you are willing to accept this premise, then if you care about your family, shouldn’t you know who controls what controls your kids and if there’s a plan behind it?

I do not intend to get into a parenting debate with readers but if we can’t get a grasp on this issue, we can never understand why our outdoor heritage, actually our heritage in general, is disappearing before our very eyes. We are losing our identity and this is because our children are having their identity created by someone else rather than mom and dad.

What if there was one entity with the power, money and influence to control nearly every aspect of our lives and we don’t even know it’s happening? Who decides on our children’s school curriculum and why? Are you aware of what your children are watching on television, who’s behind the programming and what they intend to accomplish by offering it to you and your family? The same can be asked about music, books, nearly every aspect of our lives. Why are we complacent and let it happen?

In Part III, I’ll begin to take a look at the actual people and entities that control our lives. It is that control that decides that our outdoor heritage will be destroyed and hopefully we can learn to recognize it and how it is being done. Then and only then, can we hope to stop it.