August 18, 2019

Maine and New Hampshire Moose Populations Uncertain?

For many years now I have wondered what good wild ungulate management does when it appears to be at least 3 years, and probably closer to 5 years, behind boots on the ground reality. I think much of this blame can be put on “modern technology” and computer modeling, as well as a driving impulse to gather mass amounts of data and then take up to a year or more to analyze it and come up with conclusions. In the meantime, real life is passing by.

Computer modeling has proven itself to be useless, that is, unless one is searching for outcome-based results that fits a narrative and more importantly can be used to prostitute money for “the cause.” And what good, really, is all the time and money spent collecting data when by the time it’s all collected and analyzed so many things have changed on the ground, the data becomes mostly outdated and useless?

But none of this matters much at all if we are dealing with fish and game agencies who refuse to consider all factors that effect the task of managing game populations at “healthy” levels.

If we were to listen to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), Maine moose population is robust and growing, with an estimated population of at least 75,000 critters. Really? Some Maine writers and sportsmen are screaming for the state to give out more moose permits. Perhaps that demand is coming a bit too late.

I contend that perhaps 3-5 years ago, Maine had as many as 75,000 moose but a combination of winter ticks and calf predation by too large populations of black bears and wolf/coyote hybrids, has knocked those numbers down considerably. Boots on the ground consensus everywhere in Maine tells us this to be so. The problem is MDIFW hasn’t caught up with that fact and/or they refuse to consider it because it doesn’t agree with their deathly slow methods of data collecting and plugging that data into fancy algorithms to achieve results. It’s not that the data isn’t necessary or valuable, it’s just things happen faster than collection and calculation and that fact isn’t necessarily being considered.

In New Hampshire, authorities there are “setting the record straight” on the status of their moose. New Hampshire says their moose population is dwindling. Is their’s dwindling while Maine’s is growing?

New Hampshire says that moose ticks and brainworm are having effects on the moose. Authorities say in some regions, New Hamshire is “being hit with the double whammy of both winter tick and brainworm.” They at least admit its a problem but not the only problem. But what’s difficult in the debate about winter moose ticks is the lack of scientific understanding of the tick. It seems just about every so-called, wildlife biologist, simply links increased winter ticks with climate change and that’s not true. But why let scientific research on ticks get in the way of a perfectly good agenda?

It is my opinion that one problem N.H. has is how they determine at what population to target as a manageable moose herd.

The public set the goals for the moose population through a public participation process.

You might need to go back and read that again. While public safety should be a part of the equation in determining how many moose is healthy for the state of New Hampshire, has all science of wildlife management been cast aside in favor of social demands? This may be detrimentally so.

I read today an article about the demise of federal fish hatcheries. One such hatchery in South Dakota, the D.C. Booth National Fish Hatchery, is going to be closed. A group fighting that closure was quoted as saying:

The agency’s [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] mission has evolved from one that oversees wildlife and fish restoration to one that protects the growing number of endangered species and now oversees the expansion of the nation’s “clean energy” revolution.

While perhaps not a direct management effort by public demands, the trend does exist at all agencies nationwide away from scientific management of wildlife in favor of social acceptance, i.e. the pressures by environmental, non governmental agencies well-funded and full of power.

It appears that New Hampshire is at least willing to admit their moose population may not be as healthy as some may have thought, that is those who like to hop in a car and go spot a moose in a swail hole. However, like Minnesota and other states nationwide, never once is the topic of predation by large predators even mentioned. New Hampshire willingly speaks of ticks and brainworm, even the needed reduction of moose to prevent automobile collisions, along with the dreaded topic of climate change, a topic always sure to generate study grants to keep biologists employed. But they will not speak of predators. Why is that? I point toward the above revelation that fish and game agencies aren’t interested in scientific management of wildlife as much as they are appeasing the environmentalists, which include the animal rights and anti-hunting groups.

New Hampshire, like Minnesota, claims they need more studies to determine what’s killing the moose. Really? I think they want to do more studies so they can ask for more money to keep biologists, with an agenda, employed. Minnesota has been “studying” their moose dilemma for about a decade or more and still they refuse, simply refuse, to consider that predators are having any effect.

What is the point of wasting money on studies that are outcome-based? Good, legitimate, scientific research examines all aspects of a problem and is open and willing to consider all influences. When faux scientists put on blinders, because part of their agenda is predator control, or promoting man-caused climate change, causing real science to suffer, it’s not only a tragedy for science but is criminal in its application and administration of monies obtained for research.

All of these so-called studies would be beneficial if the scientists acted like scientists and halted their determination to prove their biased theories accurate, while at the same time stop shutting out the rest of the world and paid attention to what was happening on the ground now, not what you see after collecting data for months, perhaps years and then trying to draw conclusions while reality slipped them by.

Yes, the Maine and New Hampshire moose populations are uncertain and the reason is just as much because of poor management as it is ticks, brainworm, climate change or auto collisions. Scientific research is so agenda driven it is no earthly good.

Share

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

What transpired recently in Idaho is a prime example of the product of “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” Idaho, like many other states, cannot find funding enough to carry out their non fish and game, environmentalist-dictated programs. In a ruse to find “alternative” means of funding, the Department of Fish and Game cobbled together a symposium, of sorts, structured entirely from the knowledge gained from outcome based education. In other words, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) knew what they wanted to achieve from such a gathering and thus designed the meetings to achieve the desired outcome.

The brainwashed leaders believed and/or convinced themselves, while at the same time mounting a propaganda campaign to additionally alter public opinion, that filling the room with operatives trained in new-science science and new-education education, was a fair representation of stakeholders and the only thing they had been taught to do. (Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.)

A small group of not so easily influenced holdouts, who have enough of an understanding to see that this sort of thing is not right, did their best to stop the symposium or change it to something resembling sanity. The result was that the majority, which is a reflection of American Society, are victims of the sinister brainwashing that exists in our schools and throughout every aspect of our society. I believe those putting on the meetings, and the majority of those in attendance, actually believe they are doing the right thing.

The key here is to gain an understanding that this “changing” or mindset alterations is not some natural phenomenon. It is not merely explained away as a “progressive” lifestyle. It may appear that way but is this progression a voluntary one? It’s an orchestrated effort as we shall learn. Readers must open their eyes to this fact.

Who is responsible for the brainwashing? I choose to call it brainwashing because that’s really what it is. When anyone or any organization sets out to change the rational way of thinking in a mass of people, that’s brainwashing. When I write that those responsible for this action believe that, “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America”, the only way this can be done is through mind manipulation; to devise a way in which to completely alter the way that people think; to convince those masses that what was white is now black, that what was right is now wrong. This is brainwashing.

As I said, this program did not start yesterday. It has been implemented to varying degrees for a very long time and what some of us are seeing in our society is a product of that work.

In Part III, I shared a tiny bit of how the United Nations has implemented programs in education that have an influence on our everyday lives. What I didn’t write much about is who is responsible for the programs and what’s behind those plans to brainwash our people.

This conversion of thought, or the destruction of all thought, comes from seemingly countless entities but all with a common factor. To grow such a large sphere of influence is a monumental task that must begin with finding the right leaders of nations around the world and “training” them to take their new-found knowledge back to their homes and businesses with them to share with others and to train new “change agents”. In time, there becomes hundreds, then thousands and tens of thousands of change agents all freshly brainwashed carrying out the mission of the “enlightened” elites of the world “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

One of those training facilitators is known as the National Training Laboratories (NTL). I have personal knowledge and experience with this organization because NTL was founded in my hometown of Bethel, Maine. As a high school student I worked for this company and later as an adult actually attended some of their seminars and “T-Groups” (training groups), as well as visited the homes of some of the founders.

Bethel, Maine is a micro New England village where the population in the village proper is approximately 1,100 people. In a town that tiny, it’s difficult to not know what is going on; the same could be said for the activities of NTL.

Founded in Bethel, Maine in 1947 by Dr. Kurt Lewin, main offices were eventually set up in Washington, D.C. and during the summers, “training” took place at the NTL Center, as well as the facilities of Gould Academy and the Bethel Inn; all located in Bethel, Maine. In addition to Lewin, Ron Lippett, Lee Bradford and others helped found NTL and after Lewin’s early death, it was mostly Lippett and Bradford that continued on with NTL.

Lewin was a freak show really; a German native trained in psychology and kicked out of his native country because of the controversial work he did. In short, he discovered that through his work he believed he could make mentally ill people well. While that is a readily acceptable practice all across America, Lewin carried it to an antithetical extreme. He believed he could make mentally well people ill. His findings became the basis for sinister plans to extract information from people and brainwash masses to achieve desired public opinion. This was used initially for military tactics but later was found to be helpful in influencing the people, anywhere and in any numbers.

With Lewin’s evil notions grounding the foundation of NTL, he, Ron Lippett (an OSS, now CIA, operative) and Bradford set out “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

In the tiny town of Bethel, Maine, corporate and educational leaders from all over the world came for their special “training”. I was most exposed to some of their tactics when I worked as an audio/visual technician. In that capacity, I would have to make sure each classroom was set up with the desired tools, i.e. easels, markers, paper, tape recorders and sometimes movie cameras and projectors. There were times when I was requested to remain in the room and run tape recorders, movie projectors and cameras. Things that I saw at age 16, I knew somehow were really wrong at all levels but at 16 I had no idea exactly as to why. In addition, I was clueless as to what was actually going on and why and to what degree this “training” was and did have that greatly influenced this nation and the destruction of our society.

The use of mind-altering drugs, human mental abuse and sex where quite common, especially in what NTL called their “sensitivity training” sessions. It was often described as a means of “emotionally tearing somebody down in order to build them back up.” And build them back up as what, I might ask?

The National Training Laboratories‘ website gives us a mission statement and a list of values. I would like, for the purposes of the context of this multi-part series to point out one specific bulleted “value”. “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” It amazes me that anyone can believe they can “create” new knowledge and “create” practice of that knowledge. This again, should give readers a better understanding of “new-science scientists” and where they get their garbage faux “knowledge” that they bring with them into the field.

NTL has worked hand in hand for years with the National Education Association (NEA), which is the largest teachers union today. In addition, Lippett and Bradford founded and ran the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), where one of its objectives was the promotion of illicit drugs into our culture. SPRU trained what today are known as “New-Science Scientists”. The purpose of their training was to implement “Future Shocks”, a tactic where crises are created for the purpose of “shocking” the masses into submission. What easier way to control and train the masses than through fear. We see it everyday…..well, at least those who can see.

Try to imagine how many new NTL trainees have infiltrated our society in the past 65 years. Scary isn’t it and again, NTL is only one small part of the big picture in the planned decline of the United States. I contend that probably by now every university and perhaps every school district in this country, along with local, state and federal governments have NTL, United Nations and other operatives working diligently to complete the change. Hundreds of thousands of “change agents” and we wonder what has happened to our wildlife biologists. Maybe it’s time to look around and ask what has happened to our lives, our heritage and our culture.

Part V will look at what one agency here in America is probably responsible for making sure our schools, television, entertainment, music, politics, etc. are carrying out their brainwashing schemes.

Share

Our Seven-Day Forecast Calls For Global Warming

It appears that the freaks who have swilled the Kool-Aid and been baptized in Al Gore’s global warming cult are pushing to kick all those local weathermen off the air who don’t espouse to their religion and speak of it on a regular basis while reporting the weather. I suppose their seven-day forecasts would look something like this:

According to the Daily Caller, the true believers want all local weathermen to include man-caused global warming in their daily forecasting of the weather. It’s a far cry difference between forecasting weather and understanding what causes our climate to fluctuate.

But aside from those differences, it’s a moronic statement to define global warming “deniers” as: “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”

As was well stated by the late Michael Crichton: “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus.”

Tom Remington

Share

Climate Alarmists Still Beating Their Drum. 2011 Coolest in Over Decade.

From JunkScience.com comes an AP report that states: ““Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998,” NASA climate scientist James Hansen admits in the GISS report. However, he adds that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, and that 2011 was cooled by a moderately strong La Niña.”

Does anyone remember taking science classes in grade school? Does anyone remember one of the first things we were taught? I didn’t think so. We were taught that in scientific experiments there always needs to be constants. Otherwise, what is there left to compare change to?

As shameful and disgusting as it is, people around the globe have been forced into being skeptical of any data put out by any climate scientists. There is so much money and politics behind climate science, the corruption renders news reports, like the one linked to here, as completely laughable. Why should we believe any of their crap?

But, beside that, consider the poor science in and of itself. In this report, these scientists are attempting to convince people the world is warming at a rapid rate and of course, even without any proof, they blame it on carbon dioxide. They base their conclusion of a rapidly warming globe on temperatures that are “above the average”.

What they fail to tell us are two extremely important items that render their conclusions something even an 8th grade science teacher would give a student a poor grade for. Climate scientists base their average temperature on records kept for the past 132 years. To a 5-year-old, 132 years seems like a long time but in climatological ranks, 132 is barely a blink of the eye.

Therefore, my 8th grade science teacher would question my conclusions as to how I obtained an “average” temperature, especially if I was trying to convince the teacher it applied to the planet since day one. I might have gotten a passing grade if I had explained that having only records for 132 years, it would be unreliable to trust my average extended out over millenniums.

The second issue involves the equipment, locations and methods of temperature taking over the 132 years. If a scientist could not have used the exact same locations, under the exact same conditions, using the exact same equipment, collecting data using the exact same methods, can it honestly be totally reliable scientific conclusions? Shouldn’t there at least be asterisks attached to certain data to explain differences?

Climate science is too young with far too many unanswered questions to be making brash statements and providing unsubstantiated conclusions about our climate, what’s causing any change and what direction it is headed in.

Please, continue the research but give us a friggin break on the political sheep dip!

Tom Remington

Share