The Christian Science Monitor has an article about the 19 elk that were slaughtered by wolves at a feeding ground near Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It is full of lies and ignorant repetitions, all void of any sort of journalistic effort to find truth…as they claim is their “responsibility.” (Note: Odd isn’t it that when someone tries to shut the Media up, they scream First Amendment, citing their responsibility to seek out the truth and report it to the people. And yet, they seldom practice anything that resembles the reporting of truth. All they are interested in is protecting their free political platform disguised as The Press.)
Here’s a breakdown of some of the things written in that article:
First, was this: “If you like wolves, you call it surplus killing,” said US Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rockies wolf coordinator Mike Jimenez to the Jackson Hole Daily. “If you don’t like wolves, you call it sport hunting.”
This just simply is not true. I am more inclined that the reason Jimenez opted to recite such nonsense is to perpetuate the divide and hatred between people in what most see as a wolf love/hate relationship. The existence of the false paradigm that people either hate wolves or loves wolves, is one of the reasons nothing constructive can be done, especially with dialogue to resolve negative wolf issues. But isn’t that just the way it is intended to be?
It matters not whether you like wolves, hate wolves, worship wolves or want to kill all wolves, wolves often kill far more prey than they ever intend to eat. For anyone to send up a huge distraction such as giving the event two names and pinning those names on one side of those who “like” wolves and those that “don’t like” wolves, is not only irresponsible but indicates a bent toward other sinister objectives.
Second, we read: “Wolves leaving such a large killing uneaten in a single night is unusual..” No, leaving a large kill scene without eating it is common and is an integral part of the existence, instincts and survival of wolves. It’s what they do. It is more than dishonest to attempt to cover up this reality and is irresponsible to print it in the Media in order to mislead or propagandize the masses.
Third, we observe this contradiction: “Mr. Jimenez said the spring snows may have weakened the elk herd, or perhaps the wolves were hungry at the end of winter and simply didn’t stop.”
If the wolves were “hungry” because it was the “end of winter” then that would be reason to understand that the wolves would have eaten their prey. They didn’t. They only killed! Get it? This is a typical tactic used as a way of convincing the public that the wolves did nothing wrong. Always protect the wolf. Always put down the man.
Fourth: “Since wolves usually kill only what they need to eat, the unusual hunt has spurred debate about wolf management.”
This is yet another attempt to substantiate the criminal action of protecting a large predator that takes and threatens private property as well as the safety of the people. Wolves don’t “usually” only eat what they kill. That is established scientific evidence. They are opportunistic killers. Then when the Media echos the B.S. calling the wolf hunt “unusual,” followed by the lie that this “unusual hunt” is what spurs on debate about wolf management, we see the effort to protect the wolf. What spurs on debate about wolf management is corruption that existed at the time the wolves were illegally introduced into the Greater Yellowstone region, using money stolen from the excise taxes collected from outdoor sportsmen who thought that money was going to be used to enhance game, habit and opportunities, not on programs designed to end it all.
What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the continued lying, cheating and stealing that goes on with the Federal Government and their NGO partners in crime.
What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the endless onslaught of lawsuits that steals money from taxpayers and exposes the corrupt judicial system that crawls in bed with the environmentalists to carry out their large predator protection programs for the purpose of destroying private property rights and the right of people to grow food, be happy and eke out a living.
There are far, far bigger things that spur on wolf management debate than wanton, wasteful, mass-killing of prey by wolves. Surplus killing by wolves is no more unusual than the amount of disease that they spread and the cross-breeding with coyotes, domestic dogs and other hybrid canine animals.
Fifth, is this misleading statement: “Ranchers are gradually accepting that the wolves are there to stay…”
This is propaganda at its most obvious. If the media repeats this often enough, people actually begin to believe it to be truth. They want to believe. That’s what they have been programmed to want.
Are ranchers really accepting the wolf? I’ve not seen that. As a matter of fact, I see just the opposite. I see more and more ranchers organizing to fight against the protection and perpetuation of the destructive wolf – a creature that is a huge threat to the livestock industry. I see them demanding of their Congressional representatives to do something about controlling the numbers of large predators. I see them calling B.S. on the fake “compensation” programs that the public has been lied to about. Ranchers are NOT willing to accept the wolf and go away defeated by a bunch of perverted animal lovers, so ignorant they can’t recognize that they are destroying themselves.
During the process that led up to the illegal introduction of wolves, Ed Bangs, the government puppet who undertook the sales job of convincing the people wolves would be good and were necessary, said that the future of the wolves depended on the social acceptance of the nasty animal. If that is true, then why have the environmentalists done everything in their power to ensure and perpetuate a great divide between the wolf worshipers and everybody else?
When wolves, or any large predator, moves in and destroys livestock, there’s little good that can be said about the assailants. Nothing being done to stop the attacks (don’t be fooled to think that any stock grower is equitably compensated for any losses) is not a formula that will foment good public relations with the wolf.
The short of it is that for the environmentalist, it is never enough. If there were 100,000 wolves in the Lower 48, that wouldn’t be enough. If every livestock item was destroyed by wolves, that wouldn’t be enough. The bastards lied to us right from the beginning…and that includes the government liars. There was never any intention to stop protecting wolves when they reached 300. There is no intention to ever stop growing wolves, as there is never enough for them. Man must go. Wolves must grow. Wolves are one tool that destroys American heritage.