November 25, 2017

Can We Stop the “Social Justice” of Wildlife Management?

Over the past few years, I have made many an utterance condemning the idiotic “social justice” approach to wildlife management. Perhaps if deer, bear, moose, loons, piping plovers, and all other animals, could sit down to a cup of coffee and “tell us how they really feel.” The job of providing for their welfare would be a bit easier…or not. Our human society, at present, believes that providing things for free – by utilizing another person’s money – is the correct thing to do, along with forcing idealistic lifestyles onto others. Evidently wildlife management is not exempt.

Animals can’t tell us how they feel, what they want, where they prefer to live and what their basic enjoyments in life are. Because we can’t communicate with animals, as with man, we are supposed to use science to figure this all out. There once was a day when it was acknowledged that in order to understand animals and care for their existence, the tried and proven principle of honest, scientific method and approach was an honorable challenge.

Today it seems that this scientific approach to wildlife management has been replaced with a form of social justice, the result of which has created a form of scientific injustice.

Social Justice can be defined as, “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” With each enforcement of social justice, all hopes at individuality and even self-determination are forever lost.

Social Justice is a Leftist term of idealism. Environmentalism and Agenda 21, both glorified perpetuations of social justice, has put a stranglehold on future individualism and aides in the destruction of God-given rights. Agenda 21, pretending to be a guideline to “save the planet,” was the infrastructure needed by those seeking social justice. It has been woven into the very fabric of American life. Every movement we make, we run face to face with “sustainable development” – the ultimate destroyer of self determination and individualism – perhaps even life itself.

Agenda 21, therefore, has become a dominant theme in wildlife management, even if never spoken. It seems, whether by design or happenstance, no decisions within wildlife management departments, crafted to care for our wildlife, can be made unless first they seek the wishes of society. With a fully propagandized public, surely wildlife management has become a form of social justice. To continue this thought process, understand that “Climate Change” (note it’s in capitals) is all a part of Environmentalism, Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and Social Justice. They didn’t just independently appear one day.

I’m not here to debate the proclamation that all wildlife belongs to all the people. That’s not what this is about. Whatever happened to when wildlife departments, their foundations built on a firm understanding of the responsibilities before them, devised scientific management plans to achieve the goals that they knew would satisfy a majority of the public, and stand behind those decisions with strong, honest and real science to support it? Today, regardless of science, if you have enough money and holler loud enough, you’ll get what you want. The system is gamed.

So where are we? Can or will we ever return to rational, scientific wildlife management? Probably not, however, before the doom arrives, we might witness some degree of a push-back. It might even be a substantial one.

To be forthcoming, please understand that I do not subscribe to the idea that there are two political systems diametrically opposed to one another. The paradigm is manufactured, the result of which is vividly on display presently coming off the November presidential election. It all about propagandized perceptions.

Because the paradigm is fake, doesn’t mean that the perceptions of the people are fake as well. They honestly believe what they say and do…or at least they feel convinced enough to say and do some pretty far out things. As Yehushua stated in the last moments of his earthly life, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Some are calling the events and fallout of the election a sudden fall of the Left and a rapid rise of the Right. Reading “Wretchard’s”, Richard Fernandez’s recent column, is a great example of how some are seeing things.

The premise being presented here is that the Left pushed and pushed and reached a point where they considered themselves to be in the catbird’s seat controlling everything of importance within their progressive lifestyle. All of a sudden, the Left came crashing down as the great wall of the Right was rapidly built around Donald Trump. As Fernandez describes it, “In an instant what was formerly yielding pudding becomes incredibly resistant like liquid armor.  The Left hits a wall.  Progressives, perplexed at this sudden change in resistance doubles down.  But this makes the liquid armor even more impenetrable and they double down some more. Unable to understand i[f] they naturally  blame conspiracies.”

So, what is this? Is any of this real? I’ll let you answer that question, however, there is everything real about perceptions. Perceptions are what guide us. It’s the forming of those perceptions that have, historically, been an extremely dangerous thing.

In the dozen years or so that I have covered the emotional politics of wolves, this paradigm of Left vs. Right (perhaps better recognized as Rep. vs. Dem. or better yet, Liberal vs. Conservative) has run its course of ups and downs. Often I wrote of how the Left (Environmentalists, Animal Rights advocates, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Social Justice warriors) always pushes for more; exercising their perceived power of controlling all things wolf, ignoring any and all opposition to their determination at achieving social justice for an animal regardless the cost. To what extreme will the Right go, if allowed?

The “pudding,” at times, runs up against “liquid armor.” In the Left’s comfort and incorrect perceptions of power, they went too far. The perceptions of the Left caused them to feel as though things have come crashing done on them. The Right began their push back. They are feeling power, some control. And so it goes. There is no ending.

I don’t believe for one minute that the progressive lifestyle is dead. Too many people love their immoral lifestyles, made legitimate in the minds of Leftists claiming a “changing world,” where all things desired must be achieved void of any thought toward morality and decency. But they do not see their world that way. What is dead is the lifestyle of tolerance, anchored by a truly moral foundation.

It matters not whether you and I want to accept the manufactured internal war of Left and Right. The reality is that a very large population of people believe (perceive) in “their side” and we are receiving hints that some are ready to fight to the death for it. What a very huge mistake that would be, especially when an honest examination of what one is fighting for is undertaken.

Historically, it has been a common existence of what appears to be ups and downs, or maybe Rights and Lefts, as each “side” maneuvers their pawns on a chess board in hopes of gaining more power than the other. Is any of it real, at least beyond the ends of their noses?

The perception may be that the Left has been in control too long. Their idealism has been forced onto the American people, for a time long enough that those on the Right believe they have “fought against” the “pudding” and have created “liquid armor.”

What then will happen to wildlife management by Social Justice, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and Climate Change?

I’m offering little hope that wildlife management will ever return to what it should be, but can I help you to better understand?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is in the process of keeping their cash flow solvent, by complying with the blackmail practices of the Federal Government, to devise game management plans for deer, moose, turkey and bear. In all preliminary readings of what to expect in these revised management plans, there is a common and readily repeated theme of making decisions within the plan based on social tolerances. In this case the social tolerances are the result of strong-arm indoctrination of Social Justice, through Environmentalism, Agenda 21 and Climate Change.

With this mind manipulation running its course and having achieved giant strides in promoting its agenda, there is little hope, short of a massive flow of liquid armor.

Perhaps another example of blind ignorance as to what has befallen us, can be seen in Maine’s effort to lay out tens of thousands of dollars to hire a company to conduct a survey of the Department and their practices. And because it’s a “well-known” and “well-respected” company, are we supposed to blindly take their propaganda, bought and paid for by MDIFW, as the gospel?

All questions in this survey are general in nature, with little or no specifics, including background data that might prompt the questions. The multiple choice of answers never include all the answers – only the ones the company wants you to choose from – often leaving respondents frustrated. Did I mention the survey was bought and paid for by MDIFW? (Learn about the Delphi Technique)

But, I don’t want to create my own distraction. Now that MDIFW has THEIR survey results, all, of course, favorable to MDIFW, that will become their answer, along with Climate Change, for everything. We’ve already seen it. It’s nauseating once you understand it.

I have searched for any kind of legislation that Maine might have that forces MDIFW to consider social tolerances within their wildlife management plans. I have found nothing. One then can only conclude that the choice to implement social tolerances into scientific processes, is that of a state government so deeply indoctrinated in the idealism of Social Justice, they believe it is the correct thing to do. How do you counter that? Isn’t this same sort of Social Justice prevalent at all levels of government, throughout all departments?

We have seen in this most recent presidential election one the biggest, if not the biggest swings in political idealism. Whether real or imagined, if this political push-back, i.e. the liquid armor, has and will have actual destructive powers to dismantle, at least to some degree, the progressive lifestyle running rampant in this nation, remains to be seen. Will any of this backlash and power gained, trickle down into state’s fish and game departments, like Maine’s, that will spoil the “pudding” of the progressives who have taken over wildlife management? One can only hope. Or none of this is real.

At some point in time, many aspects of wildlife management, based on Romance Biology and VooDoo Science, will run their course. Some people will see. Some won’t, nor do they want to. A push-back will ensue. To what strength remains to be seen. I doubt any will go noticed. The beast is too big with not enough people left who care enough to do anything about it. They love their Kool-Aid. Drink it and like it.

But always remember that democracy, as we have been brainwashed to believe is such a wonderful thing, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Perhaps at one meal time there may be two sheep and one wolf.

 

 

Share

Radical Maine Animal Rights Activist Seeks Investigation of MDIFW/Advisory Committee

John Glowa of South China, Maine, most noted for his off-the-wall advocacy for the protection of all animals (over people), even at the detriment of some animals, has asked Maine Senate President Michael Thibodeau, Maine House Speaker Mark Eves, and Senator Roger Katz, to launch an investigation into the actions of the Legislature’s Committee representing the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). Glowa claims, “the committee is unanimously stacked with consumptive users-hunters, trappers, fishermen or supporters of hunting, trapping and fishing.”

Glowa calls for representation on the Committee by non-consumptive users stating that, “There are NO committee members who advocate on behalf of non-consumptive users and on behalf of non-consumptive use of Maine’s fish and wildlife resources.” I think Mr. Glowa is confusing two distinct and separate issues. The MDIFW manages all wildlife, some of which happens to be game species of which Glowa seems to lose sleep over and the idea that some of Maine’s tax payers “consume” specific, designated game species, as part of a proven model of wildlife management. The only place that the advocacy of “non-consumptive” wildlife may have is when wildlife science calls for reductions or elimination of consumption of a species in order to maintain responsible management of the species in question.

Mr. Glowa, and far too many animal advocates, have lost sight of – or never had it in sight before – the fact that had it not been for the formulation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, in combination with fish and game departments, funded mostly by sportsmen, some of whom happen to be consumptive users and some non-consumptive users, the complainant wouldn’t have anything to complain about.

Proper game and wildlife management sometimes calls for the reduction of specie populations in order to sustain a healthy proportion of animals in question. Non-consumption has no part in proper scientific management of wildlife. Non-consumptive use is a political term coined in order to promote the radical, post-normal, ideals of animal rights activists and carries with it not an ounce of actual wildlife science and responsible management.

If it so happens that MDIFW, or any fish and game department, goes about it’s management plans in a way that, without putting the species in question at risk, increases their revenue in order to improve upon their management goals, how can any such action be considered NOT in the best interest of Maine taxpayers AND the wildlife?

It should be for these reasons alone that no followers of political, animal rights idealism, should be permitted to participate in decision making about scientific hunting, fishing and trapping management.

Upon examination of the words contained in two letters sent by Glowa to Thibodeau, Eves and Katz, one can find that the author believes that consumptive use of natural resources is not advocating for the resource. On the contrary and it has been proven for several decades now in what is a model of wildlife management that is the envy of the world. Again, this is nothing more than a representation of an individual’s political idealism, and not scientific, views of how tax payers choose to make the best use of their natural resources. In this case, the small amount of “consumptive” use, is a windfall for everyone and should be promoted not destroyed as is being suggested.

In an addendum to the original request for an investigation, Glowa, empty-handed when it comes to wildlife science to support his political views, distorts facts in an attempt to sell others on the misrepresented claim that there are more wildlife watchers who spend more money than do hunters, trappers and fishermen. Glowa states, “wildlife watchers spend some $800 million annually in Maine, far more than is spent by hunters and fishermen combined.” Any use of these numbers is a dishonest representation of the actual data compiled in reference to the subject.

It should be understood by readers that the collective term “wildlife watcher” if formed into “Wildlife Watcher,” meaning an actual group or member(s) of a group who specifically and purposefully go “wildlife watching,” that is, in the exact same fashion as one goes hunting, trapping and/or fishing, then figures from that activity could be derived and used in comparison, i.e comparing apples to apples, etc.

When the surveys are done to compile the information referenced, anybody who said that on any outing in Maine, they saw a wildlife animal, that was registered as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a Wildlife Watcher.

Of the claimed $800 million spent annually on “wildlife watching,” the dishonesty comes in that people did NOT spend $800 million specifically to go watch Maine wildlife. It’s easier to track hunters, trappers and fishermen because they buy licenses, the money of which is used to properly manage healthy game species – a benefit to all Maine people including those who enjoy catching a glimpse of a deer on the way to grandma’s house – of which that “glimpse” gets recorded as “wildlife watching.” Shame, shame.

Perhaps the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Legislative Committee are guilty of some wrongdoing and, more than likely are guilty of corruption at some level – after all it is politics – I don’t see how refusing to place (if that is actually what has happened) non-consumptive users, real or fake, on this committee makes them crooks. In actuality, I would commend the committee for keeping the best interest of scientific wildlife management at the focus of their work and not oiling of some squeaky-wheel, politically-driven, advocate of non-consumptive (anti-hunting, trapping, fishing) resource use.

Normal life, calls for the responsible USE, U-S-E of natural resources. To deny anyone consumptive use of game animals, as part of a proven, scientific program, is advocating for scarcity, which is nothing more than advocating for the destruction life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is the advocacy and promotion of death!

Share