November 13, 2018

Wildlife 101

By James Beers:

Fantasy disguised as “science” is called “junk” and your report about Yellowstone (Wolves, Cougars Help Restore Landscape) in the 12 November U. S. Watch is “junk”.

Despite the titles of the authors and University status of their employment, elk herds did not “grow in size” due to the “widespread extermination of wolves and cougars”.  They grew in size because the Park Service bureaucracy would not allow hunting of elk (or anything else) in the Park for the greater part of the last century.  Neither hunters nor federal bureaucrats did anything about the elk increase except study and whine about it.

Hunting that would have kept the elk at any desired level while funding conservation programs went unjustified for decades.  In addition to visceral NPS prohibitions, could elk management have been justified to “restore willow plants and other vegetation along the park’s streams” or to change “the herd’s behavior” or to “allow streams to return to a ‘more’ natural state”?  Right!

Hunting or those vaunted “government sharpshooters” using modern wildlife biology could have kept elk at whatever level was desirable.  Such a “level” however, has become a value decision for decades with urban fantasies slowly gaining steam to denigrate human management of wildlife for human welfare in favor of unmanaged ecosystems with dangerous deadly and destructive large predators at large threatening people while killing certain animals like moose, dogs and livestock in unacceptable numbers.

Think of it as replacing truthful data and knowledge with free-roaming, protected predators; a practice condemned in writing first by the Greeks hundreds of years before the time of Christ.

Jim Beers

12 November 2018

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Share

Too Many Deer? Not Enough Forest? Who Gets to Decide?

I was sent a link to an article about the woes of Wisconsin in places where someone gets to say there are too many deer and that having “too many” deer is not good for the forest and may even promote disease in animals and people. Whose perspective is right? Who gets to decide how it should be?

Perhaps the work written of in this article is all, mostly, or some or not true. Who is to say really. We read it as working class stiffs and either agree with it because it fits into our own narratives conveniently, or dispel it because it doesn’t. So what’s the problem?

If there are too many deer, who gets to make that determination and on what basis do they use to decide? The researcher in focus says that where there are “too many” deer, it’s not good for the forests. Who says?

In reality, one has to wonder how much of any of all this discussion would even be happening if our society hadn’t turned into one of hatred of man and preferred affection of animals? There was a day, really not that long ago, when it was never questioned about why game managers were manipulating herds to the benefit of consumers/hunters. Yes, people needed and wanted deer meat to eat. It was not questioned. It was actually encouraged…if today’s young, progressives can believe that.

Today, it’s a different story. Hatred, greed, anger, radical animal protection has turned the table. When you combine all of this with money available to carry out the scientism of outcome-based studies that will be used to prop up environmentalists’ groups, used to sustain their onslaught of money-making lawsuits, is there anything left that at all resembles true scientific processes?

To somebody, Wisconsin has too many deer. To others, there’s not enough. To somebody, the number of deer that exist are damaging the forest. To others, what exists is normal. But the real question should be looked at from whose perspective these statements are being created? And who gets to decide?

What I see, mixed in with all the greed and corruption, are entities like the forest industry buying whatever “research” they can afford to protect their working forests. This is not unlike hunting organizations wishing to protect the very game they desire to chase which happens to be a very lucrative industry in its own right. Toss in the billions of dollars spent by well-funded environmental groups and it’s a war.

Was it always this way? It seems that before Environmentalism reared its extremely ugly, hate-filled head in the 1970s, the forest industry and the hunting industry go along quite well. This union was also readily accepted by society as part of American Heritage.

As has become the norm, money talks and $#!% walks. Money and greed can get you anything you want because there’s enough greed to go around. Perhaps the researchers are doing their work rooted in their own brainwashed and propagandized perspectives and don’t see the corruption behind it all. We either accept it or reject it and whoever gets the most support in numbers and money, wins.

What a life!

Share

Why The Left Loves and Hates Science

Scienticism is science without skepticism. It takes the ideas of science and uses them to create an infallible belief system that gives our lives meaning and dictates how we should live those lives.

In other words, a religion.

Contrary to popular disbelief, a religion doesn’t need a god. It does need some things. A creation myth that explains our lives. An enlightened leadership. The conviction that every person’s actions matter. Redemption, salvation and damnation. Miracles. An imminent apocalypse. A prophesized golden age.

Scientism offers all these things and more. Its creation myths inevitably lead to philosophies about our place in the universe. Its miracles are technological. Its heroes have super powers or spaceships. Global warming is on its way to destroy us. And only recycling and green energy can save us from the climate apocalypse. Its truths are infallible because they are prophesized by PhD’s wielding hockey stick graphs.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maine’s New Big Game Management Plan Stained With Environmentalism

*Editor’s Note* – When I ended my work on this article last evening, unfinished and unedited, I didn’t realize that I unintentionally hit the “publish” button instead of the “save draft” button. For some readers, you may have gotten a look at the unfinished work with lots of errors in it. I apologize for this mistake.

Maine wildlife authorities have concluded the Draft copy of a new 15-year big game management plan. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) likes to call the plan the 10-plan – that’s because it’s about 5 years late in coming.

Regardless, for those willing for some honest examination of the Draft Plan, can see that it is smeared with acts of Environmentalism, Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, and Scientism.

Pharmacies and doctors have seen windfall profits from the fear-mongering over Lyme disease. We’re all gonna die, ya know! And along with this preprogrammed effort to scare the hell out of anyone thinking about going outdoors, we see the call from “society” (social, socialism, communism) to reduce the deer population to save the planet. Never lose sight of the fact WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE from Lyme disease or some other manufactured “weapon of mass mental destruction.” Doing so would really upset the Global Power Structure’s plans.

Because MDIFW has taken up the cross to manage big game for healthy populations, spending less effort on anything that might reveal or expose lack of accountability, we now have to even further reduce the deer population below the dismal levels that already exist. (Note: Once again we see another firm case of the overwhelming need to KNOW deer populations in order to manage them responsibly.)

Must Lyme disease be a new disease? Oh, wait! According to some (wink-wink) Lyme disease was “discovered” (deserves another wink-wink) about 40-years ago. Others (get ready for it) say “new discoveries” (quadruple wink-winks until at least the cows have all come home) indicate that Lyme disease has been around for “15-million years.”

During a period of time of nearly 20-25 years ago, Maine wildlife biologists were estimating the deer population in excess of 300,000 and the deer management plan in place at that time stated the statewide goal was to maintain an “over-wintering” population of about 310,000.

In MDIFW’s wildest dreams, they estimate today deer population of around 200,000 animals. However, it appears that harvest rates of modern times don’t match with those of 15 years ago or longer. In other words, the number of deer harvested of late does not necessarily equate to 200,000 deer. Something less than that.

Regardless, 40 years ago, when Lyme disease was “discovered,” where was Lyme disease? Where was Lyme disease when Maine’s deer population spiked to well over 300,000? I know, I know. You’re all going to say that better diagnoses today detect the disease. Is that really an honest answer?

So why is the deer being blamed? It’s not the source of Lyme disease. It only is a blood host for the Lyme/deer tick. Why aren’t we expending necessary effort to go to the source of the disease and instead, picking on deer and determining to kill off whatever number of deer it takes to reduce Lyme disease (oh, why not! Wink-Wink) (Note: It is the aim of Environmentalism and/or animal rights perverts to end hunting. Going after the source of Lyme disease is not conducive to ending hunting, but if they can successfully reduce the deer populations to levels below the need for surplus harvest, they will have achieved their goal. You should also know that these groups couldn’t care less about your risk of contracting Lyme or any other disease.)

Ironically, or something, those Environmentalists who say we’re all gonna die because deer spread Lyme disease, will be the first in front of the microphones and television cameras demanding that all hunting must stop in order to protect a man-caused fragile deer population…while the cases of Lyme disease continue to flourish…because of better diagnostic techniques? (yes, yes! Wink-Wink)

Environmentalism = Scientism, Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, man sucks, and we’re all gonna die!

Also in this latest charade of big game management mockery (as demanded by the Legislature), once again we hear the woes of the failure of deer management.

A few years ago, a group of “stakeholders” and interested “volunteers” comprised a quasi-vigilante-style onslaught defined as an effort to address deer management issues in Maine. I wonder what they would have done through all those meetings if “Climate Change” didn’t exist or their bred-in instincts at totalitarian authority to steal away landowner rights didn’t give them subject matter?

During those meetings, the discussion eventually came around to suggesting that deer management in northern, western, and eastern Maine be essentially abandoned because the MDIFW cannot find ways to grow deer. That’s called GIVING UP! There are just too many excuses why it can’t be done. However, a great deal of actual deer management has been abandoned due to the utter nonsense being taught to wildlife biologists in factories of higher brainwashing, and increased pressure from Environmentalism to “change the way we talk about wildlife management.” And, let’s not forget the fear of lawsuits.

It is imperative that those who care about deer management in Maine understand that part of this Draft Plan calls for a “reevaluation” of deer management in northern, western, and eastern Maine to determine whether any effort to manage the deer in those regions is worthwhile. DAMN THAT CLIMATE CHANGE!! (Note: We must consider that should MDIFW abandon deer management in these regions, would the deer population then grow?)

We can blame whomever we want, however, according to the outcome-based “surveys” MDIFW conducted, the majority of Maine people think all is well on the homefront and that MDIFW is doing a marvelous job. That’s mostly because not unlike the brainwashed college students, society is just as brainwashed and they don’t even suspect anything.

It’s easy to target the wildlife biologists, but how much they are to blame is difficult to tell. Many are just simply doing what they are told. If we look at wildlife management as what it has become, none of what I write about matters because we will NEVER return an honest science-based system of wildlife biology. Instead, we will see a rise in Scientism, Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, Outcome-based management plans, etc.

There is one more issue in the Draft Deer Management Plan that needs to be looked at. The Plan calls for a reduction in deer populations in most all of southern and central Maine. These reductions, because of pressure from Environmentalists to stem Lyme disease, would put the population densities down to 15 – 20 deer per square mile, which is ample deer. Essentially, areas of central and southern Maine are what is keeping deer hunting in Maine alive. This is because there is a viable deer population there. In the north, west, and east, deer densities run as low as 2 – 5 deer per square mile and hunting activity is dropping like a rock.

If we slash the deer herd in central and southern Maine, what’s left? How will hunters react?

The Draft Plan for all Wildlife Management Districts calls for increased hunting and, “Continue to provide a diversity of opportunities for hunters to pursue deer by allowing multiple hunting techniques over a long season framework.”

This is a great example of wordsmithing. The Plan wants to “provide a diversity of opportunities.” What precisely does that mean? I suppose it means that I could buy a 10,000-acre spread in Central Maine, put nothing on it, manage the nothingness that is there and sell “opportunities” for those interested to go there and pursue rhinoceros. That would be diverse and provides an “opportunity.”

You might recall in my opposition to the wording of any proposed constitutional amendment to protect hunting, fishing, and trapping to Maine’s Constitution, each proposal used the same kind of wording – wording that would guarantee a right to an opportunity not a right to hunt, fish, and trap game. There is a difference.

However, the bottom line is that if hunting in Maine is to be a part of our future, there must be game to hunt, fish, and trap. It’s that simple.

Surveys, for what they are worth, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have indicated that the biggest deterrent to hunting is finding or taking the time. If hunters and potential hunters now struggle to find the time, or to justify taking the time, to hunt, how much more disinterested will people be when the only parts of the state where there are ample deer to hunt are gone?

For some of us, there is a great challenge to pursue the monster buck in areas where deer densities run around 2 -5 per square mile. Most, however, want meat and don’t have the resources to spend hours and hours to get it.

And all of this discussion about the Management Plan is actually a wasted effort. This legislatively mandated management plan is nothing more than typical government bureaucratic nonsense that, once written, is set aside and little attention paid to it. If it was required that game managers followed this plan and their production was as dismal as it is, compared to the plan, many should lose their jobs.

It is an act to appease the morons in the Capital building and to placate the unsuspecting public. In some ways, perhaps a lot of ways, consider it a good thing that game managers don’t follow their own plans.

Now, if we could just do something about the spread of Environmentalism throughout society and in our school systems.

RIGHT!!

 

Share

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