February 21, 2019

Washington State Senate Approves Bill to Kill Wolves Without Permit to Protect Property

As an update to a story I published earlier this week of two domestic dogs being attacked by wolves in Twisp, Washington, the Washington State Senate, by a vote of 25-23, passed a bill that would allow a person to kill wolves that are attacking or threatening their animals and livestock.

The bill now goes to the House.


You Are On Your Own

I gather from this video there is no real threat to people becoming too intelligent.


Scientific Research With an Axe

Once again readers of the Bangor Daily News, from out of Bangor, Maine, got to read about one retired Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) biologist who has the answer about why Maine’s deer herd has disappeared. Ready? Habitat. Yup, once again them damned landowners, and this time with government accomplices, cut down all the trees and thus the deer have all starved to death.

Unlike the author of this piece, I will concede that loss of habitat plays a role in the demise of the deer herd. Habitat is an important factor in deer management, along with many other issues. However, I am also willing to consider other contributing factors that it appears this author is not.

There’s two things in this opinion piece that need to be noted. The first is the author’s story telling of making a scientific determination in late March of 1989, by using an axe and chopping up deer bones, determining two things; the deer starved to death and the deer were not killed by coyotes, even though he admits the deer had been eaten by coyotes.

Amazing isn’t it that conclusions about animal health and death can be determined with an axe. People who are specialists at trying to ascertain whether livestock have been killed by predators or died first and then eaten by predators, struggle to make a determination, with even more tools than an axe, and often are left without a firm result, of which the benefit of the doubt goes to the predator being innocent. Are we to believe that this retired MDIFW biologist, 24 years ago, carried out a necropsy with an axe and made a determination that the deer he found dead in a deer yard starved to death? And that he remembers the details so well 24 years later?

I also wonder if this author understands that predator presence, also known as harassment, is a major contributing factor in accelerating the declining health of deer in wintering yards, and throughout the entire year for that matter? In a recent article written by Dr. Charles Kay, Wildlife Ecologist-Range Management Specialist, Utah State University, and published in Muley Crazy Magazine, he states the following:

In addition, under certain environmental conditions, such as deep, crusted snow, even relatively small-sized predators, like coyotes, can kill large-size prey, such as mule deer, at will and without regard to sex, age, or physical condition of the prey. Then too, there is the question of whether the prey animals are naturally substandard, or are they substandard because they are constantly being chased and harassed by wolves and other predators?

One need ask if this retired biologist, on his one trip into a deer yard in 1989, where 10 deer laid dead, was able to scientifically ascertain (with and axe) that these deer were substandard in health because they starved or had been harassed by predators, or both? Also, can he remember all the environmental conditions that year? That would help.

The second issue deals with the timing of the release of these stories and what appears to be the admission of complacency, or perhaps even neglect, on the part of the biologist back 24 years ago. The author accuses foresters of cutting down trees in deer yards or clear cutting around them, as well as intimating that some cover-ups were also taking place. These kinds of accusations, along with other information given in this Bangor Daily News opinion piece, for the purpose of pitting readers against landowners and promoting predator protection, leads me to ask: In 1989 what did this biologist (not retired) do about what he claims to have witnessed? Who did he speak to once he was told or supposedly witnessed what had happened? Did he go to his boss at the MDIFW to see what could be done? Who did he talk to, if anybody? Was it the MDIFW policy to overlook these actions and not bring it to anyone’s attention? If he got no cooperation from his hierarchy, did he take his concerns to perhaps the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine or to media outlets to let all Mainer’s know of the malpractice of foresters and what it was doing to our deer herd? And finally, the author makes no suggestions as to what he would do now if this same thing was brought to his attention, other than, in this opinion piece, suggest more government control and buying up land that he claims will protect the deer yards. If he was MDIFW boss, what would he tell his subordinates to do in such cases?

The timing of these stories are quite convenient and suspect, coming at a time when there exists efforts, including legislation, to do something about predator control. Because this author, obviously a predator protector, will never admit that predators play a significant role in deer depredation, his aim here is only geared toward protection of his beloved dog; a shame actually.

Efforts are underway to attempt to do something about protecting deer wintering areas. It’s not an easy task to accomplish. Deer management is a bigger task than hugging a tree. Saving a tree will NOT necessarily restore Maine’s deer. Studies exist that suggest that all attempts at habitat restoration has no effect on ungulate rebuilding without predator control.

Predator control is a task that can be undertaken much easier than finding ways to ask or force landowners to not cut their forests. Because predator control in an integral part of deer management, it should be undertaken while efforts continue to come up with better ways to protect the habitat needed to help the deer survive the winters. Making deer management one dimensional is not only ignorant but is irresponsible and suggesting habitat is the only problem wreaks of special interest.


Day 42 – No Executive Orders


42 Days! A pair of dice has 42 dots on them. Perhaps 42 is significant in that President Obama rolled the dice 42 days ago when he pretended to be signing 23 executive orders about gun rights, gun control, gun bans and gun confiscation. I also think the dice he rolled were loaded to come up on “snake eyes” every time. He is a crook, a criminal, a common street thug who has deceived the people, while exploiting young and innocent children to promote his goal of creating civil unrest, that will lead to street uprisings and violence…..by his design.

Nothing has been posted on the White House website about any executive orders concerning guns. Why do we allow this man to do this?


Remember V.P. Joe Biden gave a woman advice to go out and buy a double-barrel shotgun if she wants protection? He even told her to do as he had instructed his wife to do if she suspected any trouble at home: Just walk out on the balcony and fire off that shotgun a couple of times and she would scare away any intruders. Is that good advice? Is Joe smarter than your average vice president? Or is he………well, never mind. Watch the video below and then ask yourself if giving that kind of advice to women in general is a very good idea.

In this article found on Wired, discover why the AR-15 is more than just a “black” rifle, a so-called assault rifle, that only military personnel should own. Great read and very informational.

The New York Times runs an article about how mandatory gun insurance would be a means of gun control (people control). Aside from the fact that an insurance policy that some believe would create more responsible gun ownership (ask that of the damned murdering thugs in Chicago), it is a false flag. Policies would be narrowly defined and cover very little. In addition, mandatory insurance, contrary to what the out of touch people proposing this act say, would infringe severely on a person’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. But most importantly, would do not a thing to curb gun violence. Punishing innocent people has no effect on criminals and mentally deranged people.

The article states that most mandatory insurance costs would “around $200 to $300 per year”, (and we should believe them because?). Such an added cost, for those of us who live paycheck to paycheck, is difficult to come by and would then create two or more scenarios. One, a person’s right to keep and bear arms has been snatched away by the elite ruling class, making it a privileged (money) right and, two, many people would become instant criminals because they would NOT buy the insurance and would hide their guns.

But this IS all about people control isn’t it. Thus the proposal for mandatory insurance.




Protection of Wolves In Maine Would Destroy What is Left of Fragile Economy and Ecosystem

Once again we are presented with a glaring example of much that is wrong with wildlife management, i.e being debated in an ignorant and biased media while supplied with information that is so far from the truth but geared only to play on the emotions of an ignorant and lazy populace.

CBC Canada News yesterday, published an article, which was nothing more than pretty much a copy and paste, unverified, unsubstantiated load of crap supplied by the Maine Wolf Coalition. The Maine Wolf Coalition (MWC) is asking the Department of Interior/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to devise a “bi-national plan”, between the U.S. and Canada, to protect fabricated wolf subspecies in order to allow “for the natural recolonization (as opposed to reintroduction) of wolves in Maine and elsewhere in eastern North America where habitat and prey will support wolves.”

The problems with this chimerical fool’s paradise go far beyond anything our copy and paste media is willing to research, or even bother with seeking facts or differing opinions. In addition, Maine’s fish and wildlife department are seemingly avid true believers into the notion of “balanced ecosystems” and the need for predator protection. Odd isn’t it, or maybe even suspect, that the citizens’ brains are bred to trust government, to rely on what fish and game, so-called, experts say because they utilize “science” in rendering decisions and making choices. The difficulty here, that when attempting to expose it one gets scoffed and ridiculed, is that this notion of “natural regulation” and how “predators make for healthy ecosystems” is only ideological theorizing in which none of it is substantiated by real science. Today’s “science” is more based on wishful thinking, computer modeling and fulfilling agendas while playing on the emotions of people to keep the coffers filled.

Aside from the fact that the Maine Wolf Coalition is lying when in reference to a killing of a wolf hybrid in New Brunswick, it says, “The New Brunswick wolf was determined to be a gray/eastern wolf hybrid. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) abuses the definitions of subspecies, especially as it concerns wolves, in order to fulfill their agendas. Historically, we know there once where some kind of wolf in Maine. All wolves are the descendents of the same canid species and the wavering and ever-changing definitions of wolf subspecies only is relevant in perpetrating predator protections, while stealing away people’s rights.

Historical accounts of wolves in Maine, dating back to the early 1600s, strongly suggest that while wolves certainly were present, they were so only because caribou roamed the state as well. Some believe that hunters killed off the caribou but historic documents show that for unknown reasons caribou migrated out of the state, almost overnight, and the wolves followed them, never to return. This of course is NEVER discussed because it fails to fit nicely into agenda-driven narratives.

It was determined a few years ago, through DNA testing, that so-called coyotes in the East, were nothing more than a hybrid, i.e. a fancy name for a mongrel. Lest we forget basic biology, a dog is a dog is a dog. About the only natural thing that prevents more interbreeding among subspecies of wild canines is the instinct of territory protection. It is most often when growing members of a pack are forced out that wolves can and will mate with coyotes and your pet dog Rover.

The premise of the MWC’s desire for a “natural” recolonizing of wolves into Maine is mostly based on their fantasy that wolves are “important and necessary for a healthy ecosystem”. The task then becomes whether or not I, or a group of like-minded truth knowing individuals, can somehow convince the people that those who espouse to this fictitious “balance of nature” cannot prove their dogma scientifically, that is, the old fashioned way of seeking truth. They simply cannot prove their doctrine.

The MWC believes that an estimated 250,000 white tail deer and 50,000 moose spread out over Maine and New Brunswick, Canada is ample prey to support a protected wolf population. It is not and it is completely ignorant of facts to state so. All one needs to do is verify facts of what is happening on the ground in states where wolves already exist: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the numbers keep growing.

Each wolf will eat 12-19 elk a year to survive. When they can’t get that, combined with other prey species, they turn to private livestock – cattle, sheep, hogs, chickens, horses, dogs, etc. Maine doesn’t have elk or caribou. How many deer and moose, along with cattle, horses and sheep, equal 12-19 caribou?

Both Maine and New Brunswick are trying to figure out how it can rebuild destroyed whitetail deer herds and groups like MWC are suggesting protecting more of these mongrel dogs because they make healthy ecosystems? This notion is completely insane.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that Maine’s post hunt deer population may be under 200,000. At 12 deer a year being eaten by 500 wolves, that’s 6,000 deer destroyed in one year. In addition, we already know that the coyotes, when the snows are deep enough, will infiltrate the deer’s wintering yards and kill doe deer and rip out their fetuses. As soon as fawning season begins, the same varmints take to killing every fawn they can get their jaws onto. With fawn recruitment already running as low as 5 or 6 per 100 does, where 30% is considered sustainable, anyone with understanding quickly sees the deer herd would be destroyed.

And how is this making for a healthy ecosystem?

And while discussing mythology, MWC states that wolves, like the coyote, only kill the weak and sickly. This also is unsubstantiated theorizing. Wolves are opportunistic and kill whatever is at their disposal. For every so-called study that exists that suggests that wolves kill only weak prey, just as many exist that suggest that wolves, being a keen and wily hunter, have learned to pick out a preferred menu item. They can pick out the pregnant prey in order to feast on the succulent fetuses. And there is never any mention of sport killing by wolves which is substantiated fact.

MWC also declares that wolves would help the economy. This also is a fabrication. In states like Idaho and Montana, the presence of wolves has not only mostly destroyed the entire hunting industry, including license sales and guiding outfits, but is also chopping away at wiping out the livestock industry.

With the proliferation and protection of wolves comes disease. Canines carry more than 30 diseases, most of which are dangerous to humans and sometimes deadly and presents its own set of problems by infecting wild ungulates, i.e deer and moose. Large cysts that grow on deer and moose lungs, liver and other vital organs, does not for a healthy wildlife population make. The presence of cysts on deer and moose restrict their natural ability to flee large predators like wolves.

The short of it is, that protecting wolves, when we can’t even control coyotes that are destroying our wildlife populations, is folly only to those with personal agendas based in total disregard of the facts.

Tom Remington