February 18, 2018

An Example of How Scientism Has Invaded Our Lives

According to Wikipedia, Scientism is: “a term generally used to describe the facile application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.” Okay, so to understand what that means, we find that “facile” means: “1. appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial. 2. easily achieved; effortless.” A Scientismist is one who practices Scientism, regardless of their cognition of their chosen path of Scientism. Forgive the Father for they know not what they do?

Scientism can be explained further to state that when the real scientific process becomes too complex, or in reality no longer fits a narrative, the human condition or human values are applied instead. It’s what most want to believe. If it feels good, do it. When we examine the “Scientific Method,” once again Wikipedia says, “The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.”

If this sounds complex, involving hard work, it is. And thus, Scientism abandons all of this and replaces it with something easier.

In short, the practice of Scientism promotes fantasy and mythology because it is easier to believe in lies than it is to learn the truth.

An example of this might be the tale of Little Red Riding Hood. Instead of researching the history of life with wolves throughout the world dating back as far as the 11th Century, to understand why people feared man-eating wolves, it is easier to say that people became scared of wolves because somebody made up a story about wolves rather than the idea for such a story had its roots in actual events leading up to that time.

Jim Beers, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, calls the exemplification of Scientism as Romance Biology and/or Voodoo Science.

All of the characteristics of Scientism, Romance Biology, and Voodoo Science have invaded our institutes of “higher” learning, growing exponentially like some foreign toxic fungus. The result of this phenomenon can be witnessed with the turn of each page of any news report or “scientific” journal. This epidemic now threatens nearly every aspect of man’s life.

Recently, it was reported that wolves had attacked and killed beef livestock in Oregon. An Oregon wildlife biologist and someone described as the “Oregon wolf coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” said that wolves had visited a ranch for years where the depredations took place and there hadn’t been any problems, apparently addressing the situation as though the wolf pack was a 4-H club.

This same biologist was further quoted as saying, “We can’t just trust anymore that (wolves) are going to come visit and not cause problems. Things have changed in that regard.”

Maybe the biologist could intervene on behalf of the wolves and suggest a “Time Out,” to give wolves the opportunity to reflect on their actions. The absurdity of the statement should stand alone and speak volumes of the errancy of today’s society, but it doesn’t. Someone must try to point out the error of their ways…for whatever that might be worth.

What we see is the exemplification of Scientism and the useless crap that is being used for brainwashing purposes at all levels of wildlife biology and wildlife management, and thus a filtering down throughout all society. Whom do we excuse as evidently this biologist’s bubble has been burst due to his perception that Romance Biology’s version of wolf behavior didn’t happen the way the books taught him it would. He believes that because wolves attacked livestock, “Things have changed in that regard.” Are you serious?

Historic document after historic document reveals that wolves systematically attack and kill livestock – sometimes for food and sometimes for bloodlust. I recall that during the many meetings and comments gathered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the introduction of wolves into the Rocky Mountains, all efforts to convince the Feds, even with historic documentation, that wolves don’t play fairly was totally disregarded. I said then that one day people would have to learn the hard way. And here we are. Yet, we see one biologist, a good representation of all wildlife biologists, who is of the belief that wolves attacking livestock is a “changed” behavior in wolves. No wonder nobody is willing to consider that wolves also attack and eat people.

Scientism disregards the complications of gaining knowledge through truth. It is easier to accept the false belief that wolves don’t attack people or livestock. When events reveal real wolf behavior, somehow this is perceived as a new event, a change in behavior that somehow must be dealt with. To them, it is not the wolves’ fault. Lacking, by choice, any knowledge of what it is and has been like for centuries to “learn to live with wolves,” ignorant and misled people think wolves attacking livestock is a rogue event.

Real wolf scientists, for centuries, have related the dangers associated with aggressive wolf behavior. For those interested in truth, libraries abound with books and documentation of wolf attacks on people and livestock. It is obvious that over the years, man’s knowledge and the processes used in employing that knowledge have changed. These changes have resulted in what I now call Scientism and some call Romance Biology and Voodoo Science.

How anybody chooses to perceive wolf behavior, will not ever alter the historic behavior of wolves. Perceptions have changed but wolf behavior basically remains the same throughout all time.

 

 

Share

Scientism, Encapsulation, Abstraction, Interface at Work

After publishing yesterday’s article on science modeling fraud, we are treated to an example of the process at work. Two Swedish “scientists” are charged with and found guilty of “scientific misconduct” because supposedly one of the scientists intentionally fabricated data and didn’t properly obtain necessary permits to “experiment” on fish. In addition, if you follow this link you will find many comments about the finding that further supports my claims about the brainwashing in place that makes “modeling” so effective. Whether you agree or disagree, try to get beyond that mindset in order to see the political blinders that just seem to persist at all levels and in everything we do.

As to the corrupt modeling process, clearly, it matters not to all those involved, including those offering comments, the topic of the research and if the claims made are factual or not and to what extent the corruption exists. There is little reason anymore to think that fraud and corruption aren’t deeply rooted in a rigged system.

The supposed “results” of this published study claimed that tiny particles of plastics in ocean waters were harmful to fish. Because to the corrupted rigged system, we don’t know if the intent of the research was to falsely provide “evidence” that this plastic existed and the harm it causes to fish for political purposes and monetary gain. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the charges brought against the researchers are not being done for other political purposes or monetary gain.

That’s how terribly corrupt the entire process has become. One person commented that they just assume that all published papers today are rooted in fraud and deception.

Nice!

Share

Wildlife Management: Scientism, Abstraction, Encapsulation, Interface

Today, I was reading Wretchard’s “The Case of the Missing Catastrophe,” over and over several times, as it contains some pretty heady stuff. As invigorating as the words may be, or perhaps mind-blowing, depending on one’s perspective and mental prowess, I believe it to be worthy of additional, relevant, thoughts, perhaps knocked down a peg or two into more understandable terms for common brains like mine.

What Fernandez is describing can be broken down into two distinct realities – deliberate manipulation and the exploits of useful idiots. Maybe I can make a bit more sense out of this.

Although Wretchard is discussing the predictions made by most media that we’re all gonna die because Donald Trump first became president and then endorsed recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the GOP is planning a tax reduction. Because prophecied catastrophes have failed to meet the cries of the media, and others, Fernandez suggests that the “models” which drive the predictions of death and destruction at the hands of liberals are being found out to be failures of the biggest kind. Some, not many, can actually recognize these failed predictions, based on “modeling,” and it is growing tiresome. Others lay claim that this is the reason “outsiders,” like Trump, got elected and why most people barely lifted a match, club or rock in protest of the Jerusalem capital decision. I think it safe to say that modeling, designed for outcome-based results, plays a vital part in our everyday lives.

Hidden behind intellectual topics of centralization, globalization, “integration with nature and society,” and such things as evolution and “intertemporal coordination,” what is being discussed is ideology. Idealism always begins with an idea. Where once “models” were the ideas of man to manipulate society, in today’s power and control institutions that more closely resemble technocracies than democracies, employment of computers to sort over ideas and information, hiding what is not wanted and fronting that which fits a narrative, is commonplace. Are we to now understand that somehow a person is exempt from a dishonest promotion of idealism because the “computer modeling” made them do it?

The intentions of modelers remain the same. Because of our love affair with technology and how it has been sold to the public, mentally programs us to believe the computer modeling is a better result than simply the ideas of a man. Strange isn’t it? The stage is set.

Computer modeling is common practice these days. It also works as a major tool of destruction in the ripping apart of society and politics (they go hand in hand as has been designed). The dishonest practice has caused major failures in the scientific world, even though those failures are the means to justify social and political perversion, to achieve agendas. It is a contributor to the injection of anger and hatred into our society as well.

For several years I studied computers and programming. I know enough to be dangerous. I do know how programming works – called coding today. I know how to hide and manipulate data to achieve desired results. That was one of the most basic instruments to learn in programming. Coding today requires knowledge of what end result one desires and writing a program to accomplish that. Imagine when this is placed in the hands of corrupt individuals, groups, corporations, 501 C3 Non Profits, etc. with something other than completely honest dissemination in mind.

I have often said that we live in a Post-Normal world today – up is down, right is left, right is wrong, black is white, etc. With enough money, anyone can pay a computer-literate technician to model anything. It has worked so well government agencies, along with our court system, eagerly rely on faulty and dishonest computer modeling in rendering decisions and crafting legislation.

In the case referenced in the linked-to article, the masses rely so heavily on a heavily manipulated Media, they are unaware that they are being propagandized by only those things they want you to know.

This same process is at play pertaining t0 wildlife management at every level in this country.

In the article referenced, I was taken by and it was pointed out to me, a quote that came from someone commenting on how computer programmers/modelers dealt with complex issues. “Encapsulation enables programmers to avoid conflicts … the code of each object still manipulates data, but the data it manipulates is now private to that object. … This discipline enables programmers to create systems in which a massive number of plans can make use of a massive number of resources without needing to resolve a massive number of conflicting assumptions. Each object is responsible for performing a specialized job; the data required to perform the job is encapsulated within the object

“Abstraction provides stable points of connection while accommodating a wide-range of change on either side of the abstraction boundary. … The abstract purpose is represented by an interface … multiple concrete providers can implement the same abstract service in different concrete ways.”

This is a pretty fancy way of stating that programmers can and are conning the rest of the world with their false manipulation of twisted and perverted data to achieve whatever they or anybody wants.

I have serious doubts that complexity is the issue when it comes to computer modeling. When the modeling is driven by corruption, for corrupt purposes, complexity is irrelevant only to the extent of the desired outcome and perhaps the need to present some kind of distraction or coverup by creating a fake controversy.

In computer modeling – bearing in mind that wildlife management today relies heavily on modeling whether they do it themselves or utilize someone else’s work – it is pointed out above that programmers deal with issues such as “encapsulation,” “abstraction,” and “interface,” to name a few. Combine these headings with corruption and we have new-science Scientism, i.e. “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge [real of false] and techniques [for corrupt reasons].”

First, a “programmer” (I placed programmer in quotes because that group or individual could vary from one lone programmer to accomplices of varying numbers.) collects data (what begins as useless information until placed in the desired order) and enters it into the computer. Then, someone must decide what data is useful, for what purposes it is useful and how to “encapsulate” that information, i.e. hiding information or using it to drive the outcome.

Encapsulating data is necessary for achieving desired results while hiding information that may cause conflicts or controversy. Politicians are masters at encapsulating information. That’s why they never answer the questions asked them. They hide what they don’t want you to know and sell you on what they do.

In today’s computer modeling, “abstraction” may be the single biggest mode of corruption, especially depending upon the chosen “interface.”

Abstraction, “the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events,” is where the real scientific process gets deliberately lost. Abstraction is necessary to promote ideas (idealism/environmentalism) rather than actual and honest scientific data. Several ideas/events can be contained within “boundaries,” including hidden data, and meted out through “interfaces” to only those listed (concrete providers) as in need (who are paying the money) of the results.

There is a common, tire-kicker expression used to describe the worthless computer-generated outcomes – “garbage in and garbage out.” In many of these cases that is precisely what is taking place. To some of us, the outcome is garbage because the input is garbage. It spells lots of dollars and cents to those dishonest people manipulating the truth. They are gaming the system for political or monetary gain.

Early on I said there were two distinct realities we are dealing with here; deliberate manipulation and the exploits of useful idiots. I would suppose that there is some overlap at varying degrees.

We must first understand that modeling and the effects of this method do not happen only inside a computer. Know that the “modeling” began in someone’s brain. It’s a process and yes, it can be a deceitful one as well. While the computer models yield results, often sought after results, the mind process is taught and carried down through many avenues of brainwashing and propagandizing. In short, we become programmed to think and operate as a computer modeling program in order to reach the desired end.

I have attended seminars in which the goal of the administrators is to manipulate attendees into becoming “change agents.” In other words, they want to brainwash (I know people don’t like that expression, however…) you to accept their propaganda (false modeling) and then go back to where you came from and change everyone’s thoughts to be like theirs. This is all a part of the “modeling” enterprise ruling our world.

Computer modeling is not always bad when used within the context of how it is achieved. It is almost never done that way and that is why my focus seems to be on the criminal aspect of deliberate and dishonest manipulation of the truth. The deliberate manipulators are those whose bent it is to deceive for monetary or political gain. We see computer modeling with such open-to-the-public exchanges involving climate change and wildlife management. Applying the methods I’ve described above, it is easy to see that dishonest encapsulation, abstraction, and interfacing can reap huge monetary windfalls as well as political gain and control.

Dishonest environmental and animal rights groups and there are thousands of them, pay lots of money to get computer models to promote their agendas. With an ignorant populace, who themselves rely upon computer modeled propaganda from multiple media sources, are quick to accept a model presented as a scientific finding. It is a part of our rigged system.

A book could be written citing all the cases where modeling is used as scientific fact for all the wrong reasons. The act is criminal, carried out by criminals.

And so, with those powerful enough to control the way wildlife management is discussed employing modeling as the foundation, is it any wonder that our fish and wildlife employees are nothing more than propagandized automatons, spoon-fed computer modeling as useful scientific data? These become the “useful idiots” who empower those corrupt purveyors of dishonest modeling as science.

When you combine the actual computer modeling with the “education” of the mental version of modeling, together, as change agents, we march into a dishonest world fraught with false knowledge and deception. Many within our fish and wildlife agencies across this land have been reared on modeling and taught the process resulting in a way of thinking that accomplishes the same thing.

Can this be reversed?

Share

So, Just What Exactly is Maine IFW Trying to Communicate?

First thing this morning I opened a link to a news story about how a major land owner in Maine, J.D. Irving, has been awarded a conservation award from Sustainable Forest Initiative. In gleaning the report, I read this: “JDI is supporting a large study of white-tailed deer through collaboration with six scientists as well as partners in government across New Brunswick and Maine. The deer research is using GPS tracking and extremely accurate forest inventory mapping to look at how deer are using different forest types during summer and winter months. This long-term study will monitor 140 deer and the habitats they choose over the next four years.”

Did I know this? Did you know this? Without knowing what exactly “supporting a large study” means, one might think that activity deserving of recognition might be worthy information to openly and eagerly share with the Maine people. Evidently it’s not.

In my work with this website, part of that includes a pretty close monitoring of the things that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) does….or doesn’t do. I am signed up to receive press notices, email notifications and Twitter Updates, although I suspect strongly that I don’t receive all that go out…for whatever the reasons.

It wasn’t until long after MDIFW had begun their deer study, that I and the rest of the public learned of it. It wasn’t until today, that I learned that J.D. Irving was “supporting a large study” with Maine and New Brunswick. If I, as someone who spends probably more time and effort than the majority of Maine residents keeping track of such things, don’t know these things, one has to suspect the general population isn’t either.

To date, MDIFW has been very stingy with any information about the study. Other than an occasional “release” to a “safe zone” propaganda outlet, the public would know nothing about the study or that it even existed.

However, this really doesn’t come as a surprise to me, as MDIFW does a very poor job of “communicating” with the public and and even worse job “communicating” with the license-buying sportsmen who pay their salaries. One example of terrible communicating is the department’s relentless tardiness in making available deer, bear, moose and turkey harvest reports and data. Seriously, I wonder why that is?

I also wonder why it is that a better effort can’t be made to share information about the ongoing studies of deer and moose in the state? Is it that the department really hasn’t the time or the money?

Following the revelation that J.D. Irving was awarded for “supporting a large study” of deer, I found out that the MDIFW has decided that the T.V. show, North Woods Law wasn’t embarrassing enough for them and the Governor’s office, so as part of what is being expressed as a campaign to “better communicate their mission with the general public,” they have teamed up with a professional actor to make “funny” videos.

The article I just finished reading says these videos are to share with the public and to “get our message out.” It appears to me that the message MDIFW wants to get out is void of deer and moose studies, or anything to do with hunting, trapping or fishing, even though, as I have repeatedly stated, it is these sportsmen who fund a great part of MDIFW’s budget…a budget that evidently allows them to hire a professional actor and spend their time recording “funny” videos for the “new” website and to publish on YouTube.

I also learned that: “The videos, produced by a professional ad agency [how much did this cost license holders?], are quick hits on three outdoorsy topics: hiking preparedness, birding and invasive species. (emboldening added)

If J.D. Irving’s “supporting a large study” is great enough that it actually made the study possible (and I don’t know what “supporting” means – maybe MDIFW should tell us?) maybe it would make a whole lot of sense to get J.D. Irving into one of those videos, if they are all that important to “getting the message out.” But maybe this is more telling than we realize. Perhaps the “message” is more about hiking, birding and invasive species, than deer, moose, trout or roughed grouse because the department has changed their focus to side dishes while disregarding the meat and potatoes.

But here I am again saying, this shouldn’t come as any surprise. Maine’s fish and game department – even fisheries and wildlife is an inaccurate title for the message it appears they want to send – is no different than all the rest of this country’s environmentalism-driven departments based on Scientism and the relationships of people and animals, far exceeding the relationships between person and person, as is obvious in our violent, angry and hate-filled society.

What I want to know is what plans the State of Maine, and the MDIFW, have in place to fund the future department of natural resources, animal rights and protectionism, when hunting, trapping, and fishing, along with the closing down of access to forests, effectively stopping ATV riding and snowmobiling, are eliminated in about 10 years?

The MDIFW evidently doesn’t have the time or resources to get game harvests reported online until the start of the following hunting seasons, or later, but they have time to make “funny” videos and resources to hire an ad agency, with a professional actor, to send out the message that hiking, birding, and invasive species are far more important than hunting, fishing and trapping.

I think the message is very clear and that MDIFW has been advertising that message loud and clear for several years now. MDIFW is NOT about getting the message out that hunting, trapping and fishing are the very backbone of this entire industry that has brought Maine and the rest of this nation to a point were responsible wildlife management has become the norm. Because we live in a post-normal age, all that has proven to work and has been successful and effective, must be destroyed and replaced with Romance Biology and VooDoo Scientism.

Maine, and the rest of the nation should say goodbye to our traditions of hunting, fishing and trapping and prepare for the “message” MDIFW and others are trying to get out.

From my perspective, it’s a real shame. I also feel bad for J.D. Irving that MDIFW cannot even take the time to acknowledge their support for their ongoing deer study. It is terrible public relations like this that next time MDIFW wants to have a study, they will be left on their own to figure it out.

Good work people!

As I see it, the choice now becomes mine. I can either hope that hunting and fishing are around until I drop dead, or I can become part of the “New Science” Scientism that is driving it all. Answer? I will NOT be signing up for “Keeper of the Maine Outdoors.”

Share

Not Knowing What’s Science and What’s Scientism

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine has placed a link to what they call “science” to prove – “this is the science proving” – that baiting bears changes the dynamics of the animals and the surrounding forests, where bears “could” cause damage to plants.

First off, the fake “study” is not science. It is the result of Scientism and a couple of students who set out to discredit in any way they could, hunting and in particular hunting bear using bait as one of the tools to accomplish the task. In other words, this is very typical of outcome based “scientific research.”

Scientism is nothing more than what some of us have come to recognize as “what scientists say and do.” It is also a dangerous and unrestrained credence of the power and authority realized from the manipulated field of science. This study is a fine example of how the scientific process is foregone and replaced with someone’s belief system because there is power in the publication of “studies.”

The scientific process is almost never followed anymore, due to a myriad of reasons, money being one of them along with political idealism and personal agendas.

Secondly, this “study” takes place within a national park in Canada, where black bears are protected. Without having data at my disposal, an intelligent supposition would be that in a park where black bears are protected, depending upon the cycle the bears were going through during the study period, there are probably too many bears in the park. Those dynamics differ greatly from areas where bears a responsibly managed and kept in check to meet management goals and social tolerances.

The study references bear baiting stations adjacent to the park placed there by hunters. Not all hunters are stupid and thus they realize that with too many bears in the park, perhaps a good place to set up a bait station and a tree stand would be adjacent to the park. Does this tactic actually result in increasing the odds of bagging a bear? I dunno. Neither do the researchers.

The short of all this is that the “scientists” chose a location for their study that is far from being typical of the vast forests that make up Canada and parts of the U.S. So, the dynamics of bears and their habitat is not what one might expect to find in the majority of the rest of the world. Observations might prove interesting but for what purpose other than political?

So, what good then is the study? I alluded to that above. And when the study was all said and done, the authors state that with hunters having baiting stations adjacent to the park, bears “could” cause some damage to the trees and vegetation. I wonder if this “could” happen even if the bait stations weren’t there. Did the “scientists” set up a comparative study area outside of the park, in a location more typical of the forests?

The purpose of the study, more than likely, has been exemplified as we see an animal rights, environmental group emotionally grasping at anything, even when it doesn’t even closely resemble the scientific process, to promote their totalitarian agendas aimed at ending a lifestyle they don’t agree with.

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine, in their posting (on Facebook?) states that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t consider this dynamic change possible. Actually, I’ve never heard or read anywhere that MDIFW doesn’t believe that baiting bear changes the dynamics of the forest in places where bear are being baited. It doesn’t take a science degree to understand that any and all “changes” within a forest ecosystem can and will have an effect on the dynamics between animal and ecosystem. It then is left to a person’s, or a group of person’s, perspective on what they want to see or have before them.

I think that it is wrong to make a statement about MDIFW of this kind. MDIFW has made it perfectly clear from the beginning that they would like to continue with baiting bear as a tool to help keep the growth of black bears in check in order to assume responsible management of a healthy bear population. Should numbers of bears drop to management’s desired levels, I’m quite certain that MDIFW would cease bear baiting.

But, within this entire debate, both sides cherry-picking convenient products of Scientism to bolster their arguments, in the grand scheme of things, there is so little baiting going on anywhere that it is akin to somebody dumping a cup of coffee into Sebago Lake (47.68 sq. miles) and declaring that the lake dynamics have changed and thus the lake has gone to hell.

Share

In Post Fact Era, Creatures Are Smarter Than Creator

A few days ago there were a few comments being made on a previous post about how coyotes, when attempts are made by those interested in controlling their population numbers, will simply reproduce more to compensate for their losses. If this idea, to humanize the existence of animals, both wild and domestic, is true, then, as was also pointed out by a reader, all animals must be endowed by their Creator with the same intelligence level to increase their reproductive rate in order to compensate for mortality losses. Or as one person wrote on another website to answer someone’s question about “Why animals reproduce?”, we find this response:

“By the process of reproduction, which is of course natural for all animals, they ensure that the survival and balance of their species is maintained in this world. The process of reproduction basically compensates the loss of species by the mortality. It is as simple as that.”

Is it that simple? Perhaps in a simpleton’s mind – one that insists to exist in this “Post Fact” era of Scientism, Romance Biology and VooDoo Science. I suppose it’s all a part of perverse animal worship, hatred toward man’s existence and a brainwashed desire to change and control everything anybody does that isn’t in line with one’s own ideology.

If it was “as simple as that” why then, have species gone extinct?

In addition, as one reader pointed out, if animals have the intelligence or some automated response mechanism to compensate mortality through increased reproduction then there would never be any changes to the balance of any and all species. Those who believe in “Balance of Nature” also believe in the concept being discussed here. But, none of this makes any sense. If, in opposition to the animal protectionists, responsible wildlife managers attempt to implement a means of controlling coyote numbers, which causes the wild dogs to increase reproduction for losses, as is believed by far too many people, then when man hunts game animals, like deer, bear, moose, elk, grouse, ducks, pheasants, and all sorts of other yummy things, those animals will also get their act together and reproduce more to compensate for losses. How brilliant. Balance of nature is remarkable?

Of course the dog lover, believes this unbelievable ability to recognize mortality is endemic only to wild dogs and doesn’t exist in any other animal….well, unless, of course, that animal is something they are in love with and don’t want to share the resource with anyone else.

It’s odd that if man hunts and kills wild dogs, “they only reproduce more to compensate losses” but when the same men hunt deer, bear, elk, moose, etc. it makes the species go instinct.

When you listen to the words spoken by these insane people about wild dogs, they are the first to blame the extirpation of wolves in the Lower 48 States, on hunting and trapping. But I thought hunting and trapping, i.e., killing of these animal, only caused them to reproduce more?

According to the brain trust of the environmental nuts, the Post Fact era geniuses, hunters are responsible for killing anything that dies. And yet, when convenient to the narrative, hunting only causes increased reproduction to compensate for losses.

As the saying goes, you can’t make this stuff up.

Share

Making It Up As You Go Along

I was sent a link to Richard Fernandez’s latest article called, “Making it up as You Go Along.” The link was accompanied by a note that remarked that in reading the article he was reminded of how wildlife management and wildlife biologists operate in this post modern area of scientism, i.e. making it up as they go along.

Share

Socially Acceptable Levels of Nonsense

It’s beyond foolishness that fish and game departments across this totalitarian nation – that thinks it’s a democracy – aim to implement “socially acceptable levels” of wild animals as it pertains to their legislative mandates to “manage” them. Wildlife management is a science – even though more often than not that science is severely fouled through Scientism, outcome-based pseudo science, environmental idealism, Romance Biology, Voo-Doo Science, or just plain political bias. Make way for “socially acceptable levels” of wildlife injected into what once was a scientific process formulated in the best interest of the people, the health of the animals and the desire to utilize a natural resource for the benefit of providing a food source and continuing a heritage that has been a part of human survival since The Great Flood.

In order to be transparent and forthcoming, let me say right up front that if the real, honest, scientific process determined that any and/or all hunting should stop, for the purpose of sustaining a game species, I would support that. I have in the past.

This “social acceptance” nonsense rose to recognition right along with Environmentalism and the perversion of Animal Rights. Much because the American person has been so misguided in their understanding as to what purpose animals have on this planet, that existence has risen to such a psychopathic level that we witness, as a common element within our society, of, not only humans living, eating, bathing, and sleeping with their pets, but offering these animals a perceived right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, equal to or greater than those of men. Utter nonsense and far beyond the realm of human intelligence.

Now we are witness to fish and game departments, caving in to the mental illness of equal existence of man and animal, that somehow it has become necessary to bastardize and pervert what was left of honest, scientific, wildlife management in order that people get to express their tolerance levels of wild animals – based on nothing but one’s manipulated perception, formulated on selfishness, greed, laziness and a myriad of other emotional factors and useless, non-redeeming social values.

Perhaps the only half-sensible level of tolerance that should be considered is that of public safety. However, are we to accept the idealism of some city slicker, who has never seen a moose, bear, turkey, deer, or downhill-side-badger, as a legitimate means of managing wildlife? Nobody wants to run the risk of running into a large wild animal with their car and getting hurt, even if they are too stupid to know when to slow down or to slow down at all. Few understand the real risk of confronting large predators due to distorted views allowed to be presented. Aren’t these issues something that should be decided by science and not socially progressive emotional clap-trap?

In what other things in our life are we asked of our “socially acceptable levels?” Please don’t confuse “socially acceptable” with economic tolerances, although in some wildlife management issues, some level of economic tolerance exists.

Does the EPA consult with the people, i.e. sending out surveys and questionnaires to get a sense of how much the public will stand for their fascists dictations?

Does the Department’s of Transportation, actively seek social tolerances with automobile drivers as to how many deaths by vehicular destruction is acceptable? Do they do the same before setting the speed limit, building or repairing roads?

Does the Department of Energy and Defense consult with you and I about our social acceptance of the number of nuclear weapons or the need for war?

Are we consulted with what our tolerances are with the military and U.S. Government spraying chemicals daily in our skies over us?

Even in fake, government shams like “Global Warming,” you and I aren’t consulted with as to what our tolerance level is as to the amount of carbon dioxide we are willing to “suffer” with.

We have been told for decades now that man explored space and landed on the moon. When was the last time you were probed as to your social acceptance of rockets in space and vast amounts of resources, time and money it took to pull this off?

Are we consulted for social acceptance as to how many trees get cut, fields get planted and harvested, or who gets to place their land in Tree Farm status?

This list is endless and yet, science be goddamned, it has become necessary for officials within our fish and game departments to consult with mentally ill animal perverts, even placing them on department committees, in order to figure out how much people can take. Who made that decision? What a joke. And how irresponsible can it be, to pretend to somehow balance sound and responsible wildlife management with the demands of environmentalists and animal perverts?

Maine is in the process of wasting time devising copy and paste game management plans so they can continue to be eligible for Federal funds. The latest laugh comes from plans to decide how many wild turkeys is “socially acceptable” to Maine people.

According to George Smith’s article, the Department wants to have enough turkeys for “viewing”: ““Ensure public satisfaction with the turkey population by providing hunting and viewing opportunity and minimizing conflicts with landowners.””

If you haven’t been to Maine recently, the traffic is extremely heavy with idiots wanting to view wild turkeys. Give me a break! Does anyone have a brain anymore? Are we so stupid as to forego everything sensible because we fear political correctness (censorship)? Cannot they see that this sham of “social tolerance” is nothing more than a guise to rid the world of the things environmentalists don’t like while protecting their own. This is totalitarianism and doesn’t even resemble the next worse thing – democracy.

If fish and game departments haven’t the collective brains to have an understanding of “what the market will bear” (no pun intended), then fire them…or better yet, don’t hire them to begin with. Science is first and foremost. To go out seeking public input about social acceptances within a scientific process is fools folly. They should be able to get a good sample of the real population’s tolerances by listening to the phone ring with complaints.

To pimp the rides of environmentalists is playing their totalitarian games. This nonsense needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. It’s a waste of time, energy and money. Fish and game departments should be applying the real scientific process to wildlife and game management, while considering the recreational value of such management, combined with public safety. If they haven’t figure this child’s game out yet, then what good are they? Get rid of all of them and find those who got a clue.

 

Share

Philosophical Shift in the Way the State Views Wildlife

As if it is needed, we have further proof that we are overcome by a Totalitarian Scientific Dictatorship.

In an article I read recently (linked to below) it appears the author voiced some concern over the most recent resignation of wildlife Commissioner Jim Kellogg in California. With his “retirement” and previous resignation of other members of the commission, the author suggested this act, “could put the finishing touches on a sweeping philosophical shift in the way the state views wildlife.” (emboldening added)

Scientism rules. It is part of the Totalitarian Scientific Dictatorship. To understand this, one has first to understand Scientism. Def – “Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most “authoritative” worldview or the most valuable part of human learning – to the exclusion of other viewpoints.” This can be more easily defined as the hijacking of the real scientific method, changing its meaning (paradigm) and creating what scientismists like to call, new knowledge, for the purpose of fulfilling selfish and perverted romantic idealism. This becomes nicely wrapped up in totalitarianism with, “the exclusion of other viewpoints.” I might remind readers that this “exclusion” eventually results in prosecution, imprisonment and death.

For those who have been following along, this should not come as news. While the author of the linked-to article expresses some “concern,” what is taking place there is a planned event. It was determined long ago to infiltrate every conceivable level of wildlife management for the sole purpose to destroy the wildlife management model and create a, “sweeping philosophical shift” in every fish and wildlife agency and outdoor organization in America and in actuality, the world. Open your eyes. It’s everywhere and is not confined to wildlife management. The infiltration is predominant at every level of our lives.

I brought up this subject in my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” I wrote, “So, why then is it some are crying out for a new understanding about animals? And what is the purpose of seeking a paradigm shift? What’s to understand that is somehow now new? If after centuries we have failed to grasp solid “understanding” of animals and the roles they play in our lives, what hope do we have in our future? Is a “new understanding” going to seriously change what becomes of the animals themselves? Probably not in the way some think it will, but I can assure you a “new understanding and paradigm shift” will certainly change the behavior of humans.”

And that is the whole point! It isn’t about wildlife, animals, flora and fauna. It’s about changing the behavior of humans.

The actions in California are far beyond concern. What we are seeing is the result of careful and systematic planning. Once scientismists, with their perverted ideals, have finished the takeover of wildlife management, there will be nothing left for the hunters, fishermen, trappers, hikers, bikers, tenters, campers, and so on. Don’t think so? Many who advocate for a “sweeping philosophical shift” are hikers, bikers, tenters, and campers and don’t think that the scientismist worshipers have them in their cross-hairs. Better think deep and hard and open your eyes.

“The sudden resignation of the most adamant defender of hunting and fishing on the California Fish and Game Commission could put the finishing touches on a sweeping philosophical shift in the way the state views wildlife, sets rules for fishing and controls predators like mountain lions and wolves.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

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