May 25, 2018

It’s Official: Maine’s New Game Management Plan Focuses on Health Not Numbers

The super-secret head deer biologist for Maine recently was quoted in a Maine newspaper as saying, “I think maybe the biggest thing we’re going to see is we’re kind of moving away from these management strategies that are geared toward achieving a certain number of animals or a certain density of animals,” Bieber said. “We’re trying to strive more toward animals that are healthy, at a level that is socially acceptable, at a level where they’re not doing damage to habitat.”

So, there you have it. But consider the contradictions also stated that shows how this “new strategy” of scientism’s environmental insanity is at work to show “flexibility” in management, i.e. to avoid accountability as much as possible and find more and more ways to get rid of any sort of responsibility toward managing game herds for surplus harvest. And were you one of the those that thought the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife would support a constitutional amendment that included a mandate to manage game for surplus harvest? Well, they won’t and now you know why. They want their “flexibility.”

But the contradictions! Bieber (super-secret head deer biologist) said his goal is “to strive more toward animals that are healthy…” That statement is pretty cut and dry. But, then he says, “…at a level that is socially acceptable,” and that’s where we begin getting into serious trouble. First of all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to seek “a level” without some form of counting. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know how many deer, bear, moose, or turkeys there are that is socially acceptable without knowing how many animals there are. What nonsense! Herd numbers are THE number one first step toward the goal of a healthy crop of game animals. You can’t not have a good accounting of animal populations and expect to have any goal of managing for a healthy herd of anything.

Putting too much emphasis on social acceptance of animal numbers is way overrated and is nothing but a tactic of Environmentalism to ensure that the people demand and the people get all the animals that fit their perverse lifestyles, rendering any form of an actual and honest scientific process of wild game welfare useless.

The super-secret head deer biologist also wants to make sure there aren’t too many animals that will destroy the habitat. And just how in the heck is this going to happen without the sound knowledge of animal populations and densities? This is really quite unbelievable.

But I do understand what direction this is headed. Where you read of the garbage being taught to students at places that graduate wildlife biologists, it’s no wonder these graduates go out into the world full of Romance Biology and VooDoo Science. The idea is to convince these new “change agents” that if you get rid of the honest and real scientific process and replace it with Scientismic nonsense, it gives more “flexibility” in management processes. In other words, Science is gone and replaced with idealistic Romance Biology where there are no wrong answers.

Oooooh! It feels so good!

Share

Two Ways to Get Scientific Consensus

According to climate alarmists, their so-called science of global warming is “settled,” meaning they perceive any discussion or questioning of their conclusions as worthless due to an overwhelming consensus on “We’re All Gonna Die!”

Reading John Hinderaker’s post about “Science, Consensus and Polar Bears,” he tells of some of the writings of Dr. Mitchell Taylor – “Dr. Mitch Taylor was a member of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) as a polar bear scientist representing Canada for 28 years (1981-2008) but in 2009 he was booted out by chairman Andrew Derocher for his skeptical views on human-caused global warming. The group then changed their rules on membership to justify their actions.”

Taylor writes: “There are two ways to get a scientific consensus. One is to present the data and the analysis in a manner that is so persuasive that everyone is convinced. The other way is to exclude or marginalize anyone who does not agree. This occurs so commonly now that it has become an accepted practice. The practice of science has become secondary to governments, NGOs, journals, and scientists who feel that the ends justify the means.”

“The other way” is permanently etched into the fabric of American Society in everything we do, not just with polar bear science or Climate Change.

Yesterday I spoke of two writers both referring to America’s “Cultural Crisis” and both pointed out the cultural divide that exists – one calling it tribalism. In this context, as with reaching a “consensus” on Climate Change, never can evidence be presented that “is so persuasive that everyone gets it.” It is no longer considered. You are a traitor to your “tribe” if you consider other facts or theories. The design is to be loyal to your people, your caste, an avid member of your safe environment and echo-chamber that repeats only what you want to hear.

Claiming the consensus on things such as politics, religion, news stories, or Climate Change is the chickens way out, to put it nicely. In reality, it more accurately resembles the brat child who sticks his fingers in his ears so he can’t hear while making loud and senseless noises to overpower the parent trying to talk with him.

And, as you may guess, the science is settled on the consensus of settled science. There is no more discussion.

Share

Making A New Dog? You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

The Urban Dictionary deems the term “Glossification” as: “…when one has applied the appropriate amount of lip gloss to one’s lips to make them look presentable or more attractive.” Some have likened the event to putting lipstick on a pig.

In today’s world of outcome-based theorizing presented as a scientific study, the desire to appear intelligent and thus powerful drives the intellectual rubbish most accept as viable scholarship. This kind of glossification is known as scientism crafted by scientismists. It can be found almost anywhere.

About a year ago a group of scientismists published a supposition, presented as scientific scholarship, about how large predators, particularly the gray wolf, exposed to “anthropogenic food” (man-created food, i.e. livestock, agriculture, pets, garbage, etc.) may cause the evolution of a new species.

Part of the Abstract reads: “We identify five main ways that carnivores might be affected: changes to social structures, behavior and movement patterns, changes in survivorship across wild- to human-dominated environments, evolutionary divergence, and potential speciation.” (emboldening added)

I’m no smarter than most people and so I wanted to make sure I understood what “speciation” meant. According to the dictionary, it means: “the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.”

I suppose if you are a subscriber to the true sense of Darwinian Evolution, this is an acceptable fantasy – that is that because of the existence of man in this world we will force the evolution of species into “new” and “distinct” creatures. Of course, the simpleton’s question might be; if this is a reality, then how many other species have become “new and distinct” since man has walked on earth? (Note: Somewhere in this discussion it is necessary to establish an honest determination of what a species is and other subspecies of said species. Oh, the trouble this has put us into.)

Another question might be why hasn’t man become a “new and distinct” species due to the changes in diet and other influences from our surroundings over the past few millenniums?

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that if a wolf is forced into cohabitation with man that there would be social structure changes? Conditions in which all of us live, including animals, change constantly. We adjust. That’s how we survive. This adaptation results in “behavior and movement patterns, changes in survivorship.”

But then the authors of this piece of intellectual bankruptcy morph these observations into “evolutionary divergence” – that is the “…accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species…”

I suppose that we should expect that all “vegans” will, eventually, morph into a new species of humanoid? What shall we call them?

But let’s forget evolution for a moment and examine the other aspect of this entire illusionary contemplation. All assumptions discussed in this imitation scholarship are based on the fantasy that man should not be present in order that plants and animals will live in “healthy” ecosystems.

In today’s world of scientismic fantasy, most often presented in terms where man doesn’t exist to screw everything up, we hear two basic terms to describe needed efforts to make all things Disneyesque – healthy ecosystems and restoration of ecosystems. This approach epitomizes the definition of subjective – “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.”

Who gets to decide what is a healthy ecosystem? Whether you agree or not with what someone defines “healthy ecosystem,” when suppositions are made from the perspective of the absence of man as part of their ecosystem, what difference does any of it make? Who should care? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound? So long as man walks this earth, all hypotheses in this context are meaningless and serve very little purpose. Who pays for this garbage?

Restoration of an ecosystem can only mean the extinction of man.

Most odd in this intellectual guesswork is that the authors appear as all subscribers to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Their evolution can only occur when something changes. Things cannot evolve unless there is a reason for them to evolve. Yet, in their haste to craft “healthy” ecosystems or to “restore” their ecosystems to fit their definitions of “healthy” and remain that way, they must be insisting on a non-changing environment. To admit otherwise is to destroy their own interpretation of what makes an ecosystem healthy. Isn’t this nothing but circular thinking?

It is one thing to discuss how it might be best to manage our environment, to find ways that man and large predators can share living and recreational landscapes, it is quite another to attempt to devise “healthy” ecosystems based on preconceived theories absent the presence of man and/or to “restore” ecosystems to what someone’s fantasy might be.

The real nonsense may just be that someone actually believes that a wolf that eats man-caused foods will one day become a new and distinct species of dog. What I can guarantee is that in a desire to make this fantasy come true, so long as we continue to protect and force wolves to live in man-settled landscapes, cross-breeding between wolves and other canines will take place. This act will result in yet one more breed of dog. Scientismists will be eager to jump to the conclusion of a “new” and “distinct” species. It will be what fits their narrative and saves them embarrassment.

When the vegans of this world have evolved into a new species of humanoid, we must ensure that both the new humanoid and the new species of dog can live in the same environments without either one of them being influenced by the other. Of course, this is biologically impossible unless perhaps we can evolve them into inanimate objects.

 

 

Share

The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!

Share

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