November 17, 2019

An Example of Balance of Nature

“The population prior to 2000 increased significantly from low numbers in the late 1970-80s due to good forest cutting practices. Wolf numbers were kept in check due to an outbreak of mange, and black bear predation on calves was kept in check until the spring hunt was cancelled in 1999.

Then came the perfect storm of moose disasters.

From 1999 to 2004, 12,000 more bears moved into moose neighbourhoods due to the spring hunt cancellation, white-tailed deer numbers skyrocketed due to mild winters over the past 10 years, and the number of wolves climbed. It’s worth noting that at the same time, the MNR implemented licence fees for wolf hunting and subsequently lowered harvests as well.”<<<Read More>>>

OntarioWMUMap

Share

The Sky Is Falling!….On You But Not On Me

skyfallingI am going to attempt to combine two different issues into one shared topic. My writing skills sometimes don’t match my brain’s ability to see things, sometimes much differently than others do, and at times I struggle to make my point clear and as concise as I see it.

Yesterday, I shared with readers some thoughts and a link to an article about “ecosystems” and the myth of “balance of nature.” Through the entirety of that process and beyond I devised a multitude of questions, the bulk of which were mired deeply in the foundation of hypocrisy, fueled by ignorance and perpetuated by, “a convenient approach to organizing thought.”

I’ll come back to more discussion and questions about the ecosystem and balance of nature paradigm in a bit. First, I’d like to pick a different topic that has a bit of a deeper and related subject matter as the convenience of “balance of nature.”

The Bangor Daily News, in Maine, today had a short opinion piece from a person mostly eulogizing the destruction of game animals due to “global warming.” It’s a hell of a way to have to go through life, believing, without giving it much thought, that the sky is falling, that it is the existence of man that is the fault of that falling sky, and calling on man to fix it.

Rational thinking causes some of us to understand that there is a distinct difference between global warming and climate change. Although the irrational “True Believers” of man-caused global warming have taken the bait, an even swap of the terms global warming and climate change, sold as the same, they are not. It is nothing more than a salesman’s tactic to garner support for a fraudulent, money-making scam. The shame in it all is that this scam is limiting the real science needed to truly understand what causes our planet’s actual climate change.

Few can see, or want to see, that little in this irrational debate makes honest sense. I suppose it’s much in a person’s ability, for lack of a better term, to think independently and not just do as you are told.

Therefore, global warming/climate change, as is used in its majority, perpetuates, “a convenient approach to organizing thought.” In other words it is used, conveniently, to explain everything. It all allows non thinkers to remain in some sort of comfort zone. It’s an explanation for them for everything. If it’s too rainy, it’s the fault of man-caused climate change. For them, the same explanation is used for cold, hot, storms, lack of storms, drought and floods, etc. What intellectual dishonesty!

One has to wonder if those non thinkers who perpetuate the myth of man-caused climate change also believe in the “balance of nature” paradigm. Which brings me back to “ecosystems.”

Whether the followers of man-caused global warming and “balance of nature” are one in the same people I don’t know. What I do think is that they have been programmed to react the same way. Invoking the balance of nature paradigm also becomes a convenient explanation for everything and, of course, man is to blame for all things bad and the one and only entity that screws up the balance.

As a believer of ecosystem self-regulation, the only thing that messes up this paradigm is the presence of man. Even though science places man in the middle of ecosystems, human haters want nothing more than to blame man for anything they perceive as bad happening to their favorite ecosystem. What lacks rational explanation is that while exclaiming the perfections of their balance of nature, more perfect if man is gotten rid of, man is always called upon to fix problems. What happened to self regulation? Isn’t man supposed to butt out?

In examining wolf introduction, or any other introduction for that matter, people, many of whom have become apparent “balance of nature” enthusiasts, called for wolves to be dropped into the Yellowstone ecosystem. Part of that argument in support of wolf introduction was the value a wolf places on “balancing” the ecosystem. This is the tired and worn out argument that is used for all predators and has caused the recent rise in predator worship.

If it was one hundred years ago, and longer, that wolves were extirpated from the Lower 48 States, then how did our fragile ecosystems survive this long without wolves? Was it because nature took over and regulated itself? Was it because wolves and predators in general aren’t necessary in an ecosystem? Did plants and animals react to the negative and positive feedback loops (a form of sustainable regulation)? Did man intercede with wildlife management and do the best job they could to provide a healthy environment?

In addition, if man and man’s existence messes up our ecosystems, and if man would be extirpated so that nature can “self-regulate”, then why is it that man is called upon to mess with what nature is doing? This sounds hypocritical to me. It would appear to me that being that man, arguably the most intelligent of all creatures in an ecosystem, being part of The Ecosystem, then everything that has happened since the beginning of time is “natural.” Is it not? So who is messing with what and why?

Doesn’t then all of this, i.e. the perpetuation of man-caused global warming and balance of nature, become nothing more than, “a convenient approach to organizing thought?” Once independent thinking was removed from this planet, the “organizing thought” becomes someone’s truth. It is not God’s truth. It is the antithesis of God’s truth whose foundation is rooted in evil, fraud, greed, power, etc.

If only we could return to the days when we humans were taught of the value of independent, critical thinking. In the meantime, some humans can only resort to exclamations that the sky is falling and, oh, by the way, I think it’s only falling on you over there and not on me over here.

Share

Trophic Cascades from Wolves to Grizzly Bears in Yellowstone?

Commentary by George Dovel

*Editor’s Note* The following is republished on this website with permission from the author. Please consider subscribing to The Outdoorsman. Information can be found in the right sidebar on the home page of this website. Thank you.

In Outdoorsman No. 51, the article on pages 8-9 Titled, “Top Wolf Scientist Charges Wolf Researchers Have Become Advocates Rather Than Scientists,” tells how Dr. L. David Mech charged that when wolf advocates began to claim the wolves’ presence was vital to restore healthy native ecosystems, a large number of university researchers invaded Yellowstone Park with the intention of proving trophic cascades caused by wolves.

Then Mech rebutted their claims with facts. He pointed out that the addition of 27 days of growing season in Yellowstone in recent years undoubtedly created healthier and taller willows and aspens and said there was no scientific evidence that wolves were responsible for creating more food for other predators.
He cited a study of 19 chapters of reviews concerning the ecological role of large carnivores, and said a research team concluded that scientists likely will never be able to predict cascading impacts on biodiversity other than prey. After a review by other wolf scientists, it was then accepted for publication in Biological Conservation on March 12, 2012.

But despite Mech’s pointed claims being published a year ago, a new study by William J. Ripple et al claims that wolves reducing the number of elk browsing on serviceberry provided more food for grizzly bears.

Why not give gift subscriptions to those who need to read facts to offset the slanted news they read, and see on TV. It costs $25 to print & mail The Outdoorsman to each person for one year – for more gifts, please print names and addresses on a separate sheet:
Please Clip Donation Coupon Below
Mail to:The Outdoorsman
P.O. Box 155
Horseshoe Bend, ID 83629
Name__________________________________________
Mailing Address________________________________________
City______________________State_____Zip_________
Amount Enclosed_______ Phone___________________
(optional)
New______Renewal_____Extension______ Gift_______

The Ripple study said it measured 778 bear scats in 2007-2009 and determined from those measurements that the bear stools contained more fruit than were found in older studies before wolves were introduced.
The study also determined that the serviceberry bushes grow taller and have less browsing than were found in previous years. That, of course, correlated with the 27-day annual increase in the Yellowstone Park growing season provided by Mech.

The study published by the British Journal of Animal Ecology on July 29, 2013, included a series of unproven hypotheses that: elk and grizzly bears competed for berry-producing shrubs; after wolves were introduced there would be a decrease in elk and an increase in berry-producing shrubs; and the percent of fruit in the grizzly bear diet would be greater after wolves were introduced.

In reality, the killing or alleged relocation of elk by wolves resulted in far fewer elk available as prey for the grizzly bears when they emerged from hibernation and desperately needed the protein provided by elk prey until green-up occurred.

Such thinly veiled attempts to try to promote the trophic cascade myth illustrate how far science has been prostituted by the current crop of students and professors who lack the wisdom and integrity to be scientists.
—–
I urge Outdoorsman readers to donate any amount, no matter how small, to reimburse us for the cost of providing mailed copies to the elected officials and others who are directly involved in managing your wildlife.

Thank you,
George Dovel

Share

David Mech: Alpha Wolf? Whatchu Talkin Bout?

I believe I posted this video quite some time ago but being that the subject has come up again….and again…..and again, I thought maybe it would help to post this video again as Dr. David Mech explains the myth, he created, about alpha male and alpha female wolves.

Oh, and heck! While you are at it, that is discovering truths, why not read Dr. Mech’s explanation about how he was wrong about trophic cascades and self regulating ecosystems. Just click this link.

Share

David Mech’s Damage Has Been Done – Too Late to Attempt Reconciliation

It seems some readers are agog today over an article discovered to have been published at Daily Kos, discussing supposed errors made in attempts to understand wolf and wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. At the center of this article is David Mech, father of the Wolf Wars; the man who identifies with wolf studies and the introduction or reintroduction, depending on one’s perspective, of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

It’s always vengeful bliss to say, “I told you so,” but it’s just as important to understand that Mech’s seeming admission that some things might not have been right, is really no victory for anyone accept David Mech and the environmental hijackers; those destroyers of people’s rights, property destruction and confiscation, and the subjection of citizens to reduced levels of public health and safety.

On examination of certain statements made by Mech, on the surface I can see him saying the things that I have been writing about for several years on the myths of balance of nature and self regulation of the ecosystems.

…..at the very least, scientists now disagree about whether wolf related behaviorally mediated trophic cascades in Yellowstone are really occurring………. At most, that well-publicized claim may not be correct at all.

…..ecologists (and particularly conservation biologists) do seem obsessed to the point of blindness with predator-induced trophic cascades.

Two decades later after observing wolves and moose and whitetail in Minnesota, Mech denounced the “balance of nature” writing in (National Wildlife 23(1):54-59) he said nature “far from always being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically”.

Consider, if you will, what Mech said and the comment made by the author of this piece.

In an interview Mech states that scientific conclusions may “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way,”. Because the meme of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone is so embedded in textbooks and popular media, it may never die, even if untrue.(Emboldening added)

It has taken how many decades of wolf study, combined with the numerous “scientific” papers written and distributed by Mech, perhaps walking around with a very large chip on his shoulder, swelling in his pride as being perceived as the wolf expert, approaching godliness in some people’s eyes, to decide to consult other scientists about wolves, or in general, balance of nature and trophic cascades?

It may appear that Mech has reached some scientific epiphany or maybe even remorse, complete with crocodile tears, so why should we be so thrilled at his comments about the dishonesty and corruption of money-starved, agenda-driven scientists who, “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way?”

I would have to agree with the author of the article who states that this meme, that is the false idea that has spread throughout the scientific community full of wolf loving, money hungry faux scientists, may never die, is, in fact, the outcome that Mech intended from the beginning.

It’s a bit easier to put up a front indicating wrongdoing when the damage has been done and you’ve achieved the goals intended. Are we then to forgive and forget? I think not. The actions of Mech and many others, those being the products of his own work, i.e. his following, his own “outright dishonesty” and what I believe to be him knowing his own bias, have caused such extreme damage, to not only the scientific community but the loss of other wildlife, the spread of disease and the destruction caused to humanity through his deceitful work to cause division and strife among the people. How does one measure that value and establish accountability? Should we just dismiss it because this man is sticking his big toe in contriteness?

The damage has been done and it probably never will get corrected. The lessons learned here will also not be all good. One would like to think that the scientific community would take a deep breath and reassess this evil approach toward political ends shrouded in spurious science, but unfortunately it will stand as a proving ground in how to make money while lying and cheating the American public, regardless of the potential of damage that can be done. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil.

The U.S. Government, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should never have given one man so much power and authority to carry out his work. To do wrong, the result of work going unchecked and unchallenged, some because Mech had the power to disregard information from others, for over 2 decades and THEN step forward indicating that things may have been wrong, isn’t something the American citizens should be so easily willing to accept. There is far more to Mech’s and other’s behavior over the years that goes a bit beyond “oops” and can rightly be described as a criminal enterprise.

As Christians we are taught to forgive, but that doesn’t mean we need forget. We must correct the wrong and seek rightful justice for the actions that go beyond scientific error. The American people will never get back into the scientific literature the truth about wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. It is my opinion that this “damage” was intentionally planned. It is also my opinion that as David Mech ages, he’s now, without much fear of punitive actions against him, willing to say what he may deem appropriate to save his own skin and play to the side of science and citizens who believed him wrong and corrupt from the beginning. We shouldn’t fall for it.

We should take his words and attach those words to the years of his work and then the task at hand for the activists is to begin a long and difficult task of reeducation. How do you counter the brainwashing being done by the most powerful?

Share

Yellowstone Wolves Hit by Disease: Upsetting Myth of Self Regulating Nirvana

This is a great report that was sent to me by a valuable resource because it reveals, what clear thinking people have known for a long time.

Researchers from Penn State University have discovered that gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park have dropped from a peak of 170, after wolf introduction, to around 100, and they blame it on disease. It’s not clear from this article in Live Science, if the mission of the researchers was to discover why the population of wolves in Yellowstone had dropped to 100 or whether they were there just to study the wolf diseases. I’m led to believe they were there to help find out what was shrinking the wolf population.

If that is the case, then have they ruled out all other causes of population reduction? Like, having not enough food to eat. Of course we’ll never know that will we. That’s one of those things that doesn’t get studied too hard nor reported on.

But, as a firm believer that Mother Nature doesn’t “balance” itself, in the human perception of “balance”, this comment by one of the researchers is a real gem.

“We’re down to extremely low levels of wolves right now,” researcher Emily S. Almberg, a graduate student in ecology, said in a statement. “We’re down to [similar numbers as] the early years of reintroduction. So it doesn’t look like it’s going to be as large and as a stable a population as was maybe initially thought.”

I suggest many of you might want to jot that one down or copy and paste it some place to save for future reference. This statement may be as close as we are ever going to get to anybody admitting that nature doesn’t balance.

She and others may have thought that but those scientists with experience said any populations driven by predators would never be stable, nor would ecosystems leave to their own devices. People’s perverted notions of what and how nature takes care of itself is far from reality and this is an example of that.

Yellowstone is perhaps as close as you can come to a self-regulated ecosystem, although it isn’t because of all the manipulating that is done with species of flora and fauna. About all that is absent is hunting and trapping to stabilize populations.

Other issues that are brought out in the article should make anyone with a brain giggle; as if this information is something newly discovered. Here’s another example. The article states, “The Penn State researchers found that distance made a difference in the spread of the disease.” I’m mean, seriously! Who didn’t know that? I was taught that I think in third grade. Isn’t it for this reason animal rights and agriculture officials frown on packing too many animals into a small space? Or, without sounding like a broken record, back during the process of developing an Environmental Impact Statement prior to the introduction of wolves, they were warned that too many wolves would bring and breed disease, many of which are harmful and deadly to humans. I think the words here are, it fell on purposely deaf ears.

And a continuation of that thought process and epiphany of the Penn State researchers, the article further states, “Thus the high wolf densities afforded by protection within Yellowstone may come at the cost of some population stability.” Well, by golly. I wonder if these same researchers are able to also conclude that if high wolf densities because of predator protection might cost the wolf population some stability, that it also causes lack of stability of other species?

This is extremely important as the fully brainwashed and educational institution indoctrination of wildlife biologists and other scientists, have taught most everyone that if man would just go kill themselves and leave Mother Nature to herself, there would be balance. And to support this myth, they lie and say that the wolf and coyote are the only species that can bring “balance” to our ecosystems.

Busted!

But fear not all you wolf lovers. It wasn’t the wolves’ fault:

“Many invasive species flourish because they lack their native predators and pathogens, but in Yellowstone we restored a native predator to an ecosystem that had other canids (animals in the dog family) present that were capable of sustaining a lot of infections in their absence,” said Almberg.

I thought “mighty dog”, once introduced, would clean up any existing disease, kill off all the sick and weekly of the prey species and urinate on any plants in order to rid the forests of invasive species.

Share