August 20, 2019

Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align With Science Say Researchers

wolfutah“Science:” – “Science is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe wolves.” This, with the exception of the lined-out word “universe,” and the added word “wolves,” is found on Wikipedia – that information website that Truth Seekers despise. It amazes me how such a word has been manipulated to mean just about everything except provide for a viable explanation of the real scientific process, which hopefully yields truth in the end. In essence, few people know the difference between scientific process and “science.” The bastardization of science is the result of some who understand this concept and exploit if for personal, political and financial gain.

An example of this might be when someone reads a “study” or a “theory” or a “proposal,” in their mind such becomes “science,” even when the real scientific process is unused, because they have been taught to react in this manner. It’s a dangerous proposition and has yielded great success for those seeking to promote personal agendas. At the same time it is destroying real, normal scientific processes.

I manipulated the title of an article I was reading that was sent to me via email, called “Carnivore Hunting Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers“. My title therefore reads, “Carnivore Protection Policy Does Not Always Align with Science, Say Researchers.”

In reading the article we find statements like: “policies regulating the hunting of large carnivores do not always align with basic scientific data;” “current harvest levels for…population of gray wolves…have led to decreased survival and reproduction, smaller packs, social disruption and a reversal from population growth to decline.”

This, of course, is concluded because the hand-picked “researchers” – birds of a feather flock together – all agree that there should be many wild carnivores in everyone’s back yard, with some to spare. Never mentioned in the article is anything to do with what each region, i.e. state regulators, wildlife managers, agricultural officials, private land owners, etc. desires for populations of wolves. Because these “researchers” want more wolves and have participated in “creating new science” about wolves and large carnivores, while ignoring all other facts and historic data about them, they call it “Science” and wield their generic terminology as though it was their bill of rights for themselves and their large carnivores. They pick the “science” and then demand management of all wildlife to fit into the new paradigm of large carnivore protection, i.e. scarcity of game hunting animals.

Take as an example the historic data that can be gleaned from stacks of books and journals from explorers and trappers. Any truthful researcher worth anything, knows that wolves in the Northern Rockies during the period when it was first opened, were quite scarce. “Quite scarce” is a comparative term, loaded to the hilt with personal, perspective value, that should be used when measured against what the large carnivore “researchers” and animal protectionists propagandize to the world about protecting large carnivores. THEIR “science” can be clearly determined by reading this one article alone, provided you understand that the measuring stick for predator populations was devised in their own factory.

This collective group is attempting to convince readers that all carnivore – wolf included – management schemes should be designed for population GROWTH. Decline, to them is a nasty word.

Simply because, for whatever the reasons, their “science” is conveniently telling them the populations of wolves in some areas are dropping, this is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing? Whether it’s good, bad or doesn’t matter, is based upon someone’s or a group of someone’s idealistic notion of their conjured up science. It is weighed heavily in personal value and romance biology. This is not hard, scientific truth. It’s all about idealism, which has no place at all in the real scientific process.

So, it becomes quite easy to toss around the term science as though it is the holy grail. Science is a general term that is most always misused. “Science suggests,” and “Science tells us,” as well as “Best Available Science,” are all used conveniently for one purpose and one purpose only – manipulation of public opinion. Upon examination of the truthful, scientific process, science is what the truthful, scientific process tells us it is, and nothing more. Who would dare question, “An international group of carnivore biologists,” when they say hunting of large carnivores doesn’t line up with science? But we should all question this statement once we understand their suggestive science is a tool of political and public opinion manipulation.

One of the “researchers” had this to say: “The North American model of wildlife management works very well for species like ducks or elk, but becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters. The management agencies involved have a difficult task, but current data suggest that more attention to the consequences of hunting large carnivores is warranted.”

To understand this completely, a reader has to know that this is opinion based on the idea that man is supposed to “co-exist” with large carnivores, while large carnivore populations are grown everywhere, even if the diet of the large carnivores happens to be human flesh or livestock. These “researchers” have taken it upon themselves to be the knights of the round table pertaining to everything carnivore, and it seems to now have spread over to attempting to exert their self-ordained authority on the rest of the world and how they manage wildlife. In their minds, and with their “science,” a reduction of any amount, for any large carnivore species, is bad, regardless. To hell with the presence of man.

The North American model of wildlife management works because of one simple and yet very powerful element that exists and has always been recognized within the model – MAN. Yup, shocking isn’t it. Man is the dominant species, the real apex predator. You can’t change that without the destruction and/or the elimination of human populations. When man realized uncontrolled hunting, trapping and fishing, with a growing population of people, was not sustainable, the Model was developed, not so that large carnivores could be protected, that would dominate the landscape, putting people at risk and contributing to scarcity among many other negative things. No, it was crafted FOR MAN as a means of perpetuating wildlife, including game species, as a resource for man…PERIOD. Get over it.

Because New Science scientists want to change the way wildlife management is discussed and carried out to suit their personal and political agendas, they first had to make up their “science” that suggests, hunting and utilizing a natural resource is unnecessary and runs contrary to “modern science.” With that firmly in their grasp, then they can go about writing articles like this one, attempting to convince people that hunting causes the eradication of species, when in fact, it does just the opposite. While perhaps not a perfect model, it certainly has sustained hunting, trapping and fishing for millions of people, for many decades, while at the same time, has grown and provided wildlife species to numbers never before seen in this country. Wildlife Watching was never a business until recently. Don’t be fooled into thinking watchable wildlife comes from predator protection.

The word “science” may be tossed around as a way to deceive people but historic fact is difficult to refute. The article in reference states that the North American Model, “becomes much more complex for species like wolves that compete with hunters.” The only ones who find complexity in this long-proven model of wildlife management are those that want to protect all large carnivores, even at the expense of man predators. To hunters, there’s nothing complex about it at all. Man is a predator that cannot and should not be removed from the scientific process of wildlife management. Man doesn’t want other predators robbing them of a valuable resource. It’s insanity to think otherwise. That’s why we walk upright and animals don’t.

Share

Radical Maine Animal Rights Activist Seeks Investigation of MDIFW/Advisory Committee

John Glowa of South China, Maine, most noted for his off-the-wall advocacy for the protection of all animals (over people), even at the detriment of some animals, has asked Maine Senate President Michael Thibodeau, Maine House Speaker Mark Eves, and Senator Roger Katz, to launch an investigation into the actions of the Legislature’s Committee representing the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). Glowa claims, “the committee is unanimously stacked with consumptive users-hunters, trappers, fishermen or supporters of hunting, trapping and fishing.”

Glowa calls for representation on the Committee by non-consumptive users stating that, “There are NO committee members who advocate on behalf of non-consumptive users and on behalf of non-consumptive use of Maine’s fish and wildlife resources.” I think Mr. Glowa is confusing two distinct and separate issues. The MDIFW manages all wildlife, some of which happens to be game species of which Glowa seems to lose sleep over and the idea that some of Maine’s tax payers “consume” specific, designated game species, as part of a proven model of wildlife management. The only place that the advocacy of “non-consumptive” wildlife may have is when wildlife science calls for reductions or elimination of consumption of a species in order to maintain responsible management of the species in question.

Mr. Glowa, and far too many animal advocates, have lost sight of – or never had it in sight before – the fact that had it not been for the formulation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, in combination with fish and game departments, funded mostly by sportsmen, some of whom happen to be consumptive users and some non-consumptive users, the complainant wouldn’t have anything to complain about.

Proper game and wildlife management sometimes calls for the reduction of specie populations in order to sustain a healthy proportion of animals in question. Non-consumption has no part in proper scientific management of wildlife. Non-consumptive use is a political term coined in order to promote the radical, post-normal, ideals of animal rights activists and carries with it not an ounce of actual wildlife science and responsible management.

If it so happens that MDIFW, or any fish and game department, goes about it’s management plans in a way that, without putting the species in question at risk, increases their revenue in order to improve upon their management goals, how can any such action be considered NOT in the best interest of Maine taxpayers AND the wildlife?

It should be for these reasons alone that no followers of political, animal rights idealism, should be permitted to participate in decision making about scientific hunting, fishing and trapping management.

Upon examination of the words contained in two letters sent by Glowa to Thibodeau, Eves and Katz, one can find that the author believes that consumptive use of natural resources is not advocating for the resource. On the contrary and it has been proven for several decades now in what is a model of wildlife management that is the envy of the world. Again, this is nothing more than a representation of an individual’s political idealism, and not scientific, views of how tax payers choose to make the best use of their natural resources. In this case, the small amount of “consumptive” use, is a windfall for everyone and should be promoted not destroyed as is being suggested.

In an addendum to the original request for an investigation, Glowa, empty-handed when it comes to wildlife science to support his political views, distorts facts in an attempt to sell others on the misrepresented claim that there are more wildlife watchers who spend more money than do hunters, trappers and fishermen. Glowa states, “wildlife watchers spend some $800 million annually in Maine, far more than is spent by hunters and fishermen combined.” Any use of these numbers is a dishonest representation of the actual data compiled in reference to the subject.

It should be understood by readers that the collective term “wildlife watcher” if formed into “Wildlife Watcher,” meaning an actual group or member(s) of a group who specifically and purposefully go “wildlife watching,” that is, in the exact same fashion as one goes hunting, trapping and/or fishing, then figures from that activity could be derived and used in comparison, i.e comparing apples to apples, etc.

When the surveys are done to compile the information referenced, anybody who said that on any outing in Maine, they saw a wildlife animal, that was registered as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a Wildlife Watcher.

Of the claimed $800 million spent annually on “wildlife watching,” the dishonesty comes in that people did NOT spend $800 million specifically to go watch Maine wildlife. It’s easier to track hunters, trappers and fishermen because they buy licenses, the money of which is used to properly manage healthy game species – a benefit to all Maine people including those who enjoy catching a glimpse of a deer on the way to grandma’s house – of which that “glimpse” gets recorded as “wildlife watching.” Shame, shame.

Perhaps the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Legislative Committee are guilty of some wrongdoing and, more than likely are guilty of corruption at some level – after all it is politics – I don’t see how refusing to place (if that is actually what has happened) non-consumptive users, real or fake, on this committee makes them crooks. In actuality, I would commend the committee for keeping the best interest of scientific wildlife management at the focus of their work and not oiling of some squeaky-wheel, politically-driven, advocate of non-consumptive (anti-hunting, trapping, fishing) resource use.

Normal life, calls for the responsible USE, U-S-E of natural resources. To deny anyone consumptive use of game animals, as part of a proven, scientific program, is advocating for scarcity, which is nothing more than advocating for the destruction life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is the advocacy and promotion of death!

Share

The Long-Linked Chain of New-Science Ignorance and Brainwashing

ChainEvery newspaper that I read, every television show or newscast I watch, books, music, blogs, Facebook (although I don’t use it anymore), etc., for the informed, self-reliant. self-determined person, with an eye for direction upon The Creator, can rivet a long chain of linked events that should, but doesn’t, stir the very inner soul of man. Because most men are followers of and fearful of the “rulers in dark places” (Ephesians 6:12) and are unaware, the chain exists to drown life and the willfully blind. It is a roadblock that prevents seeing the Truth that can set a man free.

Where to begin?

I’ll set the stage with this. Recently a group of people, seemingly much more interested in the welfare of animals, particularly wolves, than man, met to: “…discuss, strategize and unite in building a coalition to address the need to reform wildlife management in America.”(emboldening added) And, what is it that this reformation intends to do? “…integrate the science of the 21st century and the ever-changing demographics and values of our citizenry.”(emboldening added)

This is “Progress.” The “science of the 21st century” is fake and useless garbage. The “ever-changing demographics and values” are corrupt and evil. Because a person’s values change, does not mean that change should be forced onto all others. Morals and ethics should be determined from the Word of God not some environmental group being propped up by the rulers in dark places.

It must be understood the meaning of such statements. These statements are not unique to just one wolf lovers’ group. It is the mantra of everything, but more specifically everything environmentalism. And it just didn’t happen. Nothing “just happens.” It is planned. The Vatican owns Environmentalism. Thus, one reason for the Pope’s recent Encyclical on Climate Change. The Vatican owns everything that intends to distort reality for its benefit at our expense.

One example of such is an organization called the National Training Laboratories(NTL). NTL is a byproduct of the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Both Tavistock and NTL are “owned” by the Vatican. The purpose of NTL is to create “change agents.” These manufactured (brainwashed) “change agents” are purposed to go about changing the way we think. An example I just gave above is one organization whose mission is to “reform wildlife management,” shows the results of NTL and other Vatican-owned, Environmentalist and media manipulating efforts.

NTL’s vision, as stated, is the: “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.”

I’ve simply scratched the surface here. In order for readers to fully grasp the meaning of statements they are subjected to throughout the media, they must understand the source of those statements.

At present, all Environmentalist groups are making every effort to co-opt what was once the truth and “create and disseminate” it into THEIR new knowledge, their reformation of how wildlife management is discussed and carried out. It no longer matters that real scientific study confirms or denies. “Twenty-First Science” creates its own results.

Those who read the Bible should understand that this is a trick of Evil. We have been warned that in the Last Days, as Satan is allowed his grip on this earth, what was once right is now wrong, what was wrong is right, black is white, white is black, etc. Hard working, honest science, geared toward the discovery of scientific truths, has been replaced with Scientism (21st century science) – fake theories presented as “peer-reviewed” science.

With strong knowledge of the realities of deception, we can begin to look into the utter nonsense that is bombarding the non-thinking minds of Internet browsers, and all media readers. This inane approach to life’s logic is bizarre to the uncluttered mind. Take for example a representative of the perverse organization called the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HSUS attempted to get a referendum passed last year (2014) to effectively ban bear hunting in Maine. In response to a previous editorial, the representative of HSUS states that:

There’s a chance that some of the top-of-the-ticket Democrats who lost their races were adversely affected because they chose to oppose the ban on bear baiting. Large majorities of Democrats in the state favored the measure, and it didn’t help the candidates’ case that they supported an obviously inhumane and unsporting practice.

The actual editorial response makes as much sense as nothing. However, the point is here that this person, as with so many other people in this country, applaud the manipulation of the ballot box when it runs in their favor. When it does not, they scream for laws to stop “them” and not “us.” Somehow the bear referendum was defeated because democrats turned out in greater numbers but instead of voting HSUS’s way, did the typical, dishonest politician thing and lied to get votes. HSUS doesn’t do that? The idiocy is that this HSUS representative cannot see the difference. This is programmed idiocy by organizations founded on the principals of, “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.”

Richard Fernandez, of Pajamas Media, tells us that Liberals control the media and those things that are “allowed” to be talked about.

“The significance of this asymmetry is that liberals have the power to legitimize the existence of problems. They can alone enter things into evidence, as it were. Max Ehrenfreund, writing in the Washington Post, has a gathered a list of discontents from various publications that are now being talked about even in liberal circles, which means the population at large can talk about them now. Liberals set the agenda, when they talk about things going down the tubes then it’s on the agenda.

This tactic is all part of the plan to, “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” The only way for Environmentalism to work, is that the Environmentalists must control the media. With this control, it is much easier to control everything else.

Animal Rights and Environmentalism isn’t about saving animals, the air and water. It’s about control. And thus, this is why the Pope wrote his Climate Change Encyclical. He no more believes that man is causing the climate to change. What he does understand, because he is part of the creation of fake Climate Change, is that with a convincing of man-caused climate change, he, the Vatican, has more power to control the people, the land, and the water. It’s about control!

We have been warned before. Robert Fanning, author of “Yellowstone is Dying” warned us that Environmentalists with much money and power were taking over the fight to protect wolves and promote a “creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice,” because “[his] goal of wolf introduction was to drive 30,000 ranchers from public lands.”

The latest and most bizarre of all revelations of the coming out of brainwashed, perverted Environmentalists, has to be the media’s coverage of Cecil the Lion. Jimmy Kimmel crying over a lion being killed and death threats directed at hunters on Facebook, while Facebook claims saying things like, “I’ll come to your Dallas Safari Club with an AK47 and grenade and wipe the whole lot of you out!,” doesn’t violate their Community Standards – the point being because it isn’t part of the controlling liberal media agenda. (See Richard Fernandez’s article linked to above.)

They don’t talk about murdering unborn babies and evidently don’t talk about death threats when it involves a lion, any animal or the agenda of the Liberal Party. Here’s a world gone stark-raving mad!

Tyler O’Neil, of Pajamas Media, writes:

Those convinced the Inquisition died out hundreds of years ago may be surprised by the emergence of the all-powerful Twitter mob. While those found in violation of the tenets of the pope were rarely actually tortured or killed, death threats and career-ending protests now target our modern apostates, with a vehemence rarely seen since the Salem witch trials.

The elevation of “animal rights” to a semi-sacrosanct belief has taken many casualties, like the freedom and livelihood of a certain American dentist — but more on that later. Religious liberty, historic tradition, and even — ironically — the lives of animals have been taken hostage by this all-consuming movement.

It’s unfortunate this writer hasn’t a clue of reality and the Inquisition. Perhaps it would be a bit more politically correct, even for faux “conservatives,” to call it the neo-inquisition for it is alive and well. We are all so immersed into it, while we sleep, that we cannot see it.

All of this stuff is demented, evil crap. To think otherwise, means you’ve got it bad. Seriously, can people NOT see it is WRONG to believe an animal’s life is more valuable than that of man? Evidently it is so. How sad. Can people NOT see that “creating new science” to fit the 21st century is wrong? It’s flat out wrong, driven by greed, deception and the striving for power. This is NOT the work of God, my creator.

There is a long chain. The links have all been connected. The chain is so long and heavy, we can no longer do anything about it. Instead, we choose to step over it and around it, pretending it’s not there. Doing so will not make it go away. God’s knowledge can break those links.

Share

Mountain lions are savage beasts

In the late 1980’s it was determined by a relatively small group of financially and politically biased scientists and their lobbyists, that the population of Mountain Lions (aka: Cougar, Puma) in California, was dangerously low. So they launched a massive media campaign to convince Californians there was a genuine problem, giving rise to the 1990 California State legislation that provided a ‘protected’ status for mountain lions. However, there was no overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting such a claim. And if there had been such credible evidence supported by a collective of unbiased and objective wildlife biologists, forming a majority opinion, mountain lions would have surely reached the benchmark for obtaining ‘endangered species’ status, and would be listed as such today. That was not the case.

Source: Mountain lions are savage beasts

Share

It All Begins With the Fake Term “Ecosystem”

*Editor’s Note* – “Everyone” does NOT know and not everyone is interested in swallowing this BS  about balancing a fake ecosystem. Nor are we interested in wasting our time with outcome-based new-science scientism of “maybes,” and “indications” – hoping for another fake excuse to love the animals and hate the people.

Everyone knows that keeping our forests and grasslands full of wolves, bald eagles and honeybees is good for the environment. But could protecting animals and preserving ecosystems also help people not catch Lyme disease or West Nile virus?

Source: Save Wildlife, Save Yourself? | Maine Public Broadcasting

Share

Moose Are Dying – Intelligent, Responsible Journalism is Extinct

An article sent to me by a reader, epitomizes the disgusting, irresponsible, ignorant, embellishing journalism is using to further brainwash already brainwashed people, who have had independent thought bred out of them.

The headline begins the travesty by declaring that moose are “dying in droves” because of global warming. Combine this with a final hilarious statement that:

A study earlier this year predicts that up to 97% of birds and mammals living in the vast region of northwest Alaska will experience major habitat affects from climate change.

and you have all the makings of a “C”-rated sci-fi movie – done in black and white. It is utter nonsense to lay claims of moose mortality on global warming when, in fact, there no longer exists ANY scientific evidence that global warming has occurred. What data that has been given the public, has all proven to be manipulated, worthless information that only helps those, like Al Gore, looking to line their pockets.

In addition, ALL studies done on global warming in the past that made “predictions” directed at scaring the hell out of pseudo-journalists like the one inking this nonsense, proved to be, not only inaccurate, but so far off all credibility was lost except to the useful idiots who still choose to believe the sky is falling.

The Doomsday writer wants to utilize a “study” that “predicts” the world is coming to an end because it sells copies? How insane. Computer modeling has proven to be a waste of time, not so much that the computers can’t make predictions but because the information being fed into them is design to produce the results needed to generate income to continue fake studies. Doesn’t anybody get this?

What’s most sad about this kind of irresponsible reporting is, it does nothing to assist and educate with facts in order that real science can be conducted to find out about the relationships with moose and all things within its environment that effects survivability of the animal. Yelling and screaming that global warming is creating bugs and viruses that are killing moose in “droves,” is akin to yelling fire in a movie theater when someone lights a match.

Actual, normal science strongly indicates that changes in climate have existed since the beginning of recorded history, are cyclical, and seriously affected by the sun. There is no real science that proves or even strongly suggests that burning of fossil fuels and other causes of carbon dioxide generation is sending the earth into some kind of irreversible death spiral. Get over it!

More than likely, what we are seeing with moose is a cyclical event, fueled in part by cycles of localized weather patterns, over-protection of moose that causes too high a population, which prompts disease, over-protection of predators that create precipitous drops in prey specie numbers, and a host of other factors.

It is just plain irresponsible for this reporter or anybody else to embellish such utter nonsense. Isn’t it time to get back to real science for the good of all?

Share

Experience Vs. Romance Biology

A letter writer from Morristown, New Jersey, has a piece in MyCentralJersey.com in which he reluctantly says that the recent attack by a black bear on a Rutgers University student in a park/preserve, was predictable. He claims he has sent “at least” 12 letters since 2007 warning that this event would occur under present bear policy.

Bob Guinter brings up a few good points. The first is in response to a person from the Sierra Club continuing to claim that black bears are docile, timid and afraid of humans.

…after spending over 10,000 hours in the North woods of Maine at my uncle’s wilderness cabin…, My experience is different. Black bears are unpredictable and they are both scavengers and predators as circumstances allow. Perhaps those who believe they are docile and afraid of people simply choose to ignore behaviors they exhibit commonly in their indigenous environment where they are at the top of the food chain.

The second point is in response to a claim that bears become aggressive, slowly over time, because they learn that humans are a source for food.

During my time of hiking and fishing the East Branch of the Penobscot River, it was a rare event to see another human; sometimes not seeing anyone outside of camp for weeks at a time. Yet bear encounters with them exhibiting aggressive behavior toward humans were common. There, they only seemed afraid of anything in the fall when the hunting-dogs were running.

This is perhaps a very good example of romance biology versus actual experience. In this day and age where real science has been shown the door and replaced with computer models and romantic theories, rooted in nonsensical idealism, what we are seeing here is the fruit of that planting.

The masses of people have been propagandized. Some may think propaganda a harsh term in this instance but when you consider that the definition states that it’s bad information being used to promote a cause or belief, it surely fits nicely. The problem here is that this propagandizing has been taking place at all levels of society for a very long time. The result is too many people have never been taught the real truth. Nobody wants to admit they were lied to and that what they believe is false. It’s like admitting a weakness, like alcoholism or drug addiction.

The real loser in all of this nonsense of “new understandings” is the beneficial-to-all scientific community. A true scientific method involves the advancement of a hypothesis. Real scientists then choose to discover if such a hypothesis holds validity. Changes to the hypothesis begin and over time, what was once a mere theory, begins to have credibility – not the lie we have been fed that “the science is settled.” Such a statement, as has been used with climate change, is completely dishonest and borders on criminal.

Today’s new science, called by some “scientism” creates computer models based on an ideology or political agenda. Money is injected and what once was a tried system of peer review, has become a support system propped up with money and promises to arrive at a desired outcome.

Unfortunately for all of us, we are left having to decide who we should believe. The result being this divide pitting totalitarian-minded people, armed with propaganda, attempting to force the rest of society to follow their ideological beliefs, through such things as voter referendums. How does this at all resemble a credible scientific process?

In the letter written that I’ve linked to above, the writer wants to know how the person with the Sierra Club can state that, “bears are usually docile and are more afraid of people than we are of them.” He asks, “How does he know?” And therein lies the difference between knowledge and understanding, through real experience, and fabricated propaganda being used to promote an agenda.

It’s really not all the far away from the story of the two guys who had hiked back into the wilderness to do some fishing and are being chased out of the woods by an attacking bear. One man says, “I don’t think I can outrun this bear!” The other man replies, “I know I can’t. I just need to outrun you.”

Which man is dealing with truth?

EBranchPenobscot

Share

Is Creating Scarcity by Over Protecting Wild Carnivores Ethical?

beareatspeta*Editor’s Note* – This information first appeared on Candid Conservatives.

Hosea 4:3

King James Version (KJV)

3 Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

AND THIS HIPPIE IS HELPING FULFILL BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE WITH HIS SCIENTISM;

*Editor’s Comment* – Isn’t arguing that eating meat involves some sort of “sacrifice” ridiculous when honesty reveals that eating, nay, living on this planet requires many levels of sacrifice? Evolution promotes fear of lost resources while God promises to take care of those who love him. You choose.

Share