June 17, 2019

Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align With Science Say Researchers

wolfutah“Science:” – “Science is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe wolves.” This, with the exception of the lined-out word “universe,” and the added word “wolves,” is found on Wikipedia – that information website that Truth Seekers despise. It amazes me how such a word has been manipulated to mean just about everything except provide for a viable explanation of the real scientific process, which hopefully yields truth in the end. In essence, few people know the difference between scientific process and “science.” The bastardization of science is the result of some who understand this concept and exploit if for personal, political and financial gain.

An example of this might be when someone reads a “study” or a “theory” or a “proposal,” in their mind such becomes “science,” even when the real scientific process is unused, because they have been taught to react in this manner. It’s a dangerous proposition and has yielded great success for those seeking to promote personal agendas. At the same time it is destroying real, normal scientific processes.

I manipulated the title of an article I was reading that was sent to me via email, called “Carnivore Hunting Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers“. My title therefore reads, “Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers.”

In reading the article we find statements like: “policies regulating the hunting of large carnivores do not always align with basic scientific data;” “current harvest levels for…population of gray wolves…have led to decreased survival and reproduction, smaller packs, social disruption and a reversal from population growth to decline.”

This, of course, is concluded because the hand-picked “researchers” – birds of a feather flock together – all agree that there should be many wild carnivores in everyone’s back yard, with some to spare. Never mentioned in the article is anything to do with what each region, i.e. state regulators, wildlife managers, agricultural officials, private land owners, etc. desires for populations of wolves. Because these “researchers” want more wolves and have participated in “creating new science” about wolves and large carnivores, while ignoring all other facts and historic data about them, they call it “Science” and wield their generic terminology as though it was their bill of rights for themselves and their large carnivores. They pick the “science” and then demand management of all wildlife to fit into the new paradigm of large carnivore protection, i.e. scarcity of game hunting animals.

Take as an example the historic data that can be gleaned from stacks of books and journals from explorers and trappers. Any truthful researcher worth anything, knows that wolves in the Northern Rockies during the period when it was first opened, were quite scarce. “Quite scarce” is a comparative term, loaded to the hilt with personal, perspective value, that should be used when measured against what the large carnivore “researchers” and animal protectionists propagandize to the world about protecting large carnivores. THEIR “science” can be clearly determined by reading this one article alone, provided you understand that the measuring stick for predator populations was devised in their own factory.

This collective group is attempting to convince readers that all carnivore – wolf included – management schemes should be designed for population GROWTH. Decline, to them is a nasty word.

Simply because, for whatever the reasons, their “science” is conveniently telling them the populations of wolves in some areas are dropping, this is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing? Whether it’s good, bad or doesn’t matter, is based upon someone’s or a group of someone’s idealistic notion of their conjured up science. It is weighed heavily in personal value and romance biology. This is not hard, scientific truth. It’s all about idealism, which has no place at all in the real scientific process.

So, it becomes quite easy to toss around the term science as though it is the holy grail. Science is a general term that is most always misused. “Science suggests,” and “Science tells us,” as well as “Best Available Science,” are all used conveniently for one purpose and one purpose only – manipulation of public opinion. Upon examination of the truthful, scientific process, science is what the truthful, scientific process tells us it is, and nothing more. Who would dare question, “An international group of carnivore biologists,” when they say hunting of large carnivores doesn’t line up with science? But we should all question this statement once we understand their suggestive science is a tool of political and public opinion manipulation.

One of the “researchers” had this to say: “The North American model of wildlife management works very well for species like ducks or elk, but becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters. The management agencies involved have a difficult task, but current data suggest that more attention to the consequences of hunting large carnivores is warranted.”

To understand this completely, a reader has to know that this is opinion based on the idea that man is supposed to “co-exist” with large carnivores, while large carnivore populations are grown everywhere, even if the diet of the large carnivores happens to be human flesh or livestock. These “researchers” have taken it upon themselves to be the knights of the round table pertaining to everything carnivore, and it seems to now have spread over to attempting to exert their self-ordained authority on the rest of the world and how they manage wildlife. In their minds, and with their “science,” a reduction of any amount, for any large carnivore species, is bad, regardless. To hell with the presence of man.

The North American model of wildlife management works because of one simple and yet very powerful element that exists and has always been recognized within the model – MAN. Yup, shocking isn’t it. Man is the dominant species, the real apex predator. You can’t change that without the destruction and/or the elimination of human populations. When man realized uncontrolled hunting, trapping and fishing, with a growing population of people, was not sustainable, the Model was developed, not so that large carnivores could be protected, that would dominate the landscape, putting people at risk and contributing to scarcity among many other negative things. No, it was crafted FOR MAN as a means of perpetuating wildlife, including game species, as a resource for man…PERIOD. Get over it.

Because New Science scientists want to change the way wildlife management is discussed and carried out to suit their personal and political agendas, they first had to make up their “science” that suggests, hunting and utilizing a natural resource is unnecessary and runs contrary to “modern science.” With that firmly in their grasp, then they can go about writing articles like this one, attempting to convince people that hunting causes the eradication of species, when in fact, it does just the opposite. While perhaps not a perfect model, it certainly has sustained hunting, trapping and fishing for millions of people, for many decades, while at the same time, has grown and provided wildlife species to numbers never before seen in this country. Wildlife Watching was never a business until recently. Don’t be fooled into thinking watchable wildlife comes from predator protection.

The word “science” may be tossed around as a way to deceive people but historic fact is difficult to refute. The article in reference states that the North American Model, “becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters.” The only ones who find complexity in this long-proven model of wildlife management are those that want to protect all large carnivores, even at the expense of man predators. To hunters, there’s nothing complex about it at all. Man is a predator that cannot and should not be removed from the scientific process of wildlife management. Man doesn’t want other predators robbing them of a valuable resource. It’s insanity to think otherwise. That’s why we walk upright and animals don’t.

Share

Outdoor Industry Executives Warn North American Wildlife Conservation Model in Peril

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Arguably, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is in peril.

But, there is a solution to not only preserve the model, but push it to new heights of success.

Technology is the answer.

“We must open up access to hunting and fishing for everyone, especially new generations,” says Powderhook visionary and CEO, Eric Dinger.

“I’m not talking just access to lands and waters, but access to information and easy participation. Improving access will save America’s outdoor heritage and industry.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Extinguishing the North American Model

From the Outdoorsman – Bulletin Number 50 – Republished with permission from the author/editor.

Extinguishing the North American Model by George Dovel

There is a long history to wildlife management, especially in Europe, and one learns from its examination that periods in which “the public” had possession of and access to wildlife have been short. Invariably the rich and mighty abrogated wildlife for their own use and enjoyment, but also let “the public” bear the cost of keeping and maintaining wildlife.

There was always at least some rebellion against the mighty by the dispossessed and subservient who often elevated poachers to public heroes and celebrated such in stories, poems, songs, even operas (i.e Rainer Maria von Weber, Der Freischuetz (free-shooter = poacher). When rebellions broke out, “the public” took it upon themselves to emulate their superiors and mercilessly slaughtered the hated wildlife. Wildlife was hated as it stood as a symbol for the elite.

What we learn is that wildlife is highly desired and that the rich and mighty will stop at nothing to get it under control – till dispossessed by revolutions. The North American situation, in which wildlife is in the public domain and in which the public, until now, has possessed wildlife de facto and de jure, is a bright exception.

I warned years ago that this is an unstable situation, vulnerable to clever attacks by the rich trying to get control over wildlife. Looks like Utah is leading the way. Our model of wildlife conservation thrives only if there is a large participation in the harvest by the public, and such harvest can be reduced drastically by letting the private sector in on reducing public access while profiting from it.

Another factor is the scarcity of wildlife brought about by heavy predation by large predators. Put the two together, Utah’s embracing of privatizing wildlife and burgeoning predator population and there is preciously little to hunt for by the common man.

The economic miracle of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is predicated on a very high rate of participation by the public in the wildlife harvest. That’s where the money lies! Studies in Wyoming long ago showed that the state got a lot more revenue from every elk killed by unguided hunters than by guided hunters.

Not the few rich, but the many average hunters generated the commerce retail giants in hunting and fishing make their money from. Conversely, you want a six-point bull? The cheapest way to get it in the long run is to hire a guide!

As to predators: hunters in British Columbia harvest about 8,000 moose annually. There are also 8500 wolves in British Columbia. The hunter harvest of moose in BC represents one week’s worth of feeding wolves. Please, do your arithmetic. Already in BC there are conflicts by native and non native hunters over the scarcity of moose. And BC has some 16,000 grizzly bears. Well, that’s another 32,000 moose worth annually.

Cheerful thoughts!

Share

If I Wanted To End Hunting, What Would I Do?

If I wanted to be the despot of the New World Order/One World Government, and one of the ways I believed imperative to control the people, those lovers of liberty, to achieve that goal, was to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing, how would I do it?

In it’s most simplistic form, I would have to take away the tools used to kill game or take away the game. But seriously, who is going to sit quietly by while one day I decide it’s time to destroy and ban ownership of guns, bows and arrows, traps, fishing poles, etc.? So far that hasn’t happened although there are efforts underway to slowly undermine the manufacture and possession of certain of these tools. But just keep believing it’s “reasonable” restrictions. “Nothing to see here! Move on, please!”

And would we as a people revolt if, one day, we woke up and were told all game species are now protected and cannot be hunted, trapped or fished? Probably not as well, but what if it was all just a slow death? Would we even take notice?

I’m not sure how we can put a timeline together as to when it started but in my judgement the birth of environmentalism in the 1970s was the onset of the end of our hunting, trapping and fishing culture and heritage. No, we didn’t wake up one morning and discover we couldn’t hunt and fish. A slow erosion has forever stripped away the identity of our hunting and fishing culture and heritage and replaced it with a socialistic architecture; the result of a war waged at winning the public’s trust first, then a systematic, unnoticeable (by most), dismantling of not only our culture and heritage, but the science that crafted the foundation of a wildlife management scheme of which was the envy of the world.

If it isn’t enough that most of us slept through the 70s, 80s, 90s and the early 2000s, we not only remain asleep but some that have woken up enough to get a first cup of coffee into them, don’t realize they are still being duped and at the same time thinking they have put a stop to, or at least slowed down, the onslaught against hunting and fishing and trapping. Quick! Drink another cup of coffee or six.

I have a case in point, which I will be forthright in saying it is my opinion based on years of reading, research, discovery and history. I have always said a person has met his match when he walks into, let’s say someone’s office, to demand their way and walks out with a big smile on his face believing he has won his demand, not knowing he was further taken advantage of. Being taken advantage of comes from ignorance and naivete.

In the Northern Rocky Mountains region, the citizens there were lied to and miserably misrepresented by government as to the realities of gray wolf reintroduction. Some have called the actions by the United States Government, staff and certain non governmental agencies and staff, criminal in nature and in need of legal prosecution.

Regardless, gray wolves were dumped onto the landscape and the result, in my opinion, has been a disaster; not in the sense that wolves didn’t make a biological recovery, but for whatever the reasons one chooses to point a finger at, it has turned into a social nightmare and a biological imbalance of wildlife species in those areas where wolves have been allowed to run rampant. However, the perpetrators of the wolf introduction aren’t suddenly going to roll over and play dead.

There’s a better way for them. In the original plans, such as they were, there was talk that one day there might be enough wolves in the forest to offer a hunting season on them. By doing such, even though many of the useful idiots who don’t understand the despot’s plan, the varmint dog is elevated to an equal social icon as other “big game” animals, i.e. elk, deer, moose, big horn sheep, grizzlies, etc. Now that the species is elevated to something it should never have been allowed to, more protections are put on the creature and value that is contemptible.

That one day came around and to appease the “sportsmen”, a hunting, and yes, even a trapping season in some places, was offered; a complete placation to the sportsmen. This should have been seen as an insult, a mockery of the tried and esteemed “model” of game management, and instead was hailed by some sportsmen as a victory.

History has proven that you can’t manage the gray wolf like you do other game animals. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation utilizes the hunting of game species to control populations and a controlling of predators to protect the game species; the key word being “control”. If wolves and other large predators aren’t controlled in order to produce consumptive use, then there will result in no game left to hunt. Oh wait! Isn’t that my despotic plan?

Nearly four years ago I warned that the plans being formulated by fish and game institutions would have no effect on the wolf populations. Around about that same time, I did a five-part series on the historic difficulties by civilizations in many countries, including the United States, to control wolves.

The short of it is, having limited tool and resource hunting and trapping seasons is only going to make the sportsmen think they have gotten their way, when in fact their opportunities will slowly diminish to nothing. Is there a smile on your face? Is that satisfactory to you?

As I write, Idaho and Montana have had wolf hunting seasons. Wyoming and Wisconsin are planning them this fall, although Wyoming’s may not happen because of lawsuits (what else is new?).

As the evil despot that I am, I believe I have mitigated the angst of many of the sportsmen. This will allow me more time to do things like Idaho is doing; lining up environmentalists, animal rights groups, predator protectors, etc. who will funnel the money I channel to them – through worldwide agencies all opposed to consumptive wildlife use, land ownership, liberty and rights – to fund wildlife departments nationwide that have now all been brainwashed into believing my hogwash I injected into the education institutions many years before. My plan is in place, so deeply rooted you’ll never change it. You might slow it down here and there, so go back to sleep.

Not that I think there’s a lot that can be done anymore to stop this giant steamroller, but at least don’t be shot with a black bag over your head. Knowing who killed your culture and heritage must have some kind of redeeming value. Doesn’t it? Snore!

Share

Designating Predators as “Big Game Animals” is Counterproductive to Game Management

Most state’s fish and game departments are required, either through constitutional regulation or legislative mandates to manage game species for surplus populations to provide harvest opportunities for the citizens. This was something that was learned shortly after the turn of the twentieth century when unregulated and commercial hunting reduced game populations to levels that became dangerously close to unsustainable.

The establishment of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation became the foundation of how states should view fish and game species and manage accordingly.

Through history, fishing, trapping and hunting, while never specifically referenced in the U.S. Constitution, were to most people, an inalienable right. It was never questioned that people would always hunt and fish and who would have thought that one day they would be prohibited from participating in these special and necessary activities. Unfortunately, as with most rights, people seem to find pleasure in appropriating one person’s rights to bolster the agenda of their own special interests.

The idea of fishing, hunting and trapping was founded in the need and want of people for sustenance. Our inappropriately twisted society has systematically gone about convincing the masses that hunting, trapping and fishing are a “sport”, some kind of perverted activity to kill innocent animals and that there is no longer a need or want to fill one’s freezer. After all, there are grocery stores. With this manipulation of minds, over time our fish and game departments have become infiltrated with those who think exactly as I have described. This has resulted in management goals and objectives that have moved away from those created years ago.

While some in their progressive thinking might believe that the new way of doing things is better, there is lacking the good and proven science to support it. Where once fish and game departments managed for surplus supplies of fish and game for harvest, there now exists the mindset that harvest is secondary, that hunting, trapping and fishing are mere recreations. This has become intertwined with the badly taught myth that nature balances itself out. Along with the preaching of this myth is that hunting, trapping and fishing are no longer needed and thus we should not be concerned with surplus supplies of game animals. Instead predator protection as taken center stage, perhaps for the direct purpose to end these activities.

Man is a predator. It really is that simple and man is a part of the ecosystems that many environmentalists seem to want to rid him from. When predators are protected, the competition for prey species increases and thus, this diminishes this once thought of inalienable right to hunt and fish.

Whether we like it or not, the hunting and fishing industries provide billions of dollars to businesses and bolsters the tax base of the states and federal government. It is integral. To destroy these industries would be detrimental to a lot of people.

So why then are fish and game departments working so hard to protect predators? Do these departments fail to understand that if the hunting and fishing industries die, more than likely they will be out of a job? Yes, these agencies have worked for decades to move fish and game departments into environmental agencies and use general tax dollars for funding, in order to further remove the power of the sportsman from the decision making processes.

If states are going to perpetuate fishing and hunting opportunities for its citizens, the only way this can be done effectively is through predator control and not predator protection. What has always bothered me is when states opt to designate a predator as a “big game” animal. With such distinction, this animal then achieves the status as a species that is managed to provide hunting or fishing opportunities for the people. By doing such, the same mind set exists to manage for surplus harvests. This is a complete contradiction in managing traditional fish and game species (elk, deer, moose, caribou, sheep, etc.) for surplus.

Nobody is ever going to convince me that placing the hunting value of a predator like a bear, wolf, mountain lion or coyote, over that of a deer, moose, elk, caribou, etc. is a good thing. And yet, our fish and game are designating varmints like coyotes and wolves, as “big game” species, selling permits to hunt them and these creatures are in direct competition for the same prey species man is seeking. How does this make sense? It would seem that only a person opposed to man’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness would perpetuate such nonsense.

I understand the need, when necessary, to regulate the control and killing of predators, and thus the need for season and permits…..as I say, when necessary.

If your state no longer seems willing to manage game species for surplus harvest, perhaps it’s time to let the people know about it. If your fish and game department is protecting predators and managing them to perpetuate a hunting, fishing or trapping season on them, you know they probably have lost interest in managing real game for surplus harvest.

For me it just seems a really stupid thing to over protect the very creature that destroys your industry.

Tom Remington

Share