May 1, 2017

House Passes CRA to Restore Alaskan Sovereignty and Local Management on Federal Wildlife Refuges

Press Release from House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 16, 2017

Today, the House passed H.J. Res. 69 sponsored by Rep. Don Young (R-AK). This joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act will overturn the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule on “Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.”

This rule violates three Congressionally passed statutes that have precedence on this particular issue. Here’s the bottom line: Alaska Department of Fish and Wildlife know exactly what they are doing. They know the area. They know the animals. This rule only stops the fish and wildlife system of Alaska from simply doing their job as they know how to do it.” Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said during floor debate.There are some people who might think this only deals with Alaska. Technically it does, but the problem is if this happens to Alaska this could also happen in any one of the lower 48 states. We’re simply one lawsuit away.”

From the beginning, I said I would do everything in my power to overturn this illegal jurisdictional power grab by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Today, we’re one step closer to delivering on that commitment and eliminating a wrongful seizure of Alaska’s fish and wildlife management authority,” Chairman Emeritus Young stated.I’m thankful to all those that played a role in moving this important resolution of disapproval, including that countless state and local stakeholders that worked with me to fight a very serious and alarming overreach by the Executive Branch. I look forward to seeing the swift consideration of H.J. Res. 69 in the Senate.”

The Federal Lands subcommittee will spend this Congress working on legislation to restore our public lands from the policy of benign neglect that has plagued our public lands to the point that we are losing our forests in the west and that has strained the relationships between our communities and our federal agencies. The resolution sponsored by Congressman Young is an excellent start,” Subcommittee on Federal Lands Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA) said.

Background Information:

On August, 5, 2016, FWS issued its final rule, which seizes authority away from the State of Alaska to manage fish and wildlife for both recreational and subsistence uses on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska.

The Congressional Review Act empowers Congress to review new federal regulations issued by government agencies. With the passage of a joint resolution and the signature of the president, Congress can overrule a regulation.

Click here for additional information on the rule.

The Maybe, I Think, Could be, Possibly, Might be, I Hope Method of Wildlife Scientism

A bald eagle, a loon and a spotted owl walked into a bar…..

That story might be just as good as the vast majority of nonsensical, Scientism reports we read about in our “Fake News” Mainstream Media – the information readily supplied these echo chambers by fish and game departments, environmentalists, animal rights perverts, as well as our own U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives.

Scientism is really nothing to do with real science and everything to do with fabricated possibilities that conveniently fit agendas. When was the last time you read an article published in any media platform where facts are presented as derived from the real scientific process, that once made real science a viable source of information? Perhaps this Fake News Scientism has been around long enough now that you can’t recognize it.

We live is what is now readily called a “post-normal scientific era.” I say readily, because when the term is used, it is not questioned. Essentially that means that the real scientific process has been abandoned in exchange for emotional clap-trap and outright dishonesty used to promote agendas, fatten wallets, control people, etc.

Here’s how it might work.

Yesterday I was reading an article published by the Associated Press about how bald eagles are becoming so numerous they are now a detriment to other species, including some that are also listed as endangered, and becoming a nuisance to some livestock growers.

None of these negatives seem to matter because the bald eagle is the nation’s official bird and is an icon to those incapable of reasoning anything beyond cute. To better put the bald eagle in perspective, I was once told by a wildlife manager (no, no names or locations) that a bald eagle was nothing more than a lazy, white-headed crow that scavenges for food, just like all the rest. Ben Franklin wanted the turkey to be the national bird but somehow the eagle won out. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the historic use of the eagle in the banners and emblems for organizations that rule the world. Nah! But that’s neither here nor there is it?

The article is presented as some kind of retelling of what most people would see as a scientific event. If you keep science in the front of your brain, for a second, here’s a list of words used in the article and they are also used by the “scientists” who are quoted in the article.

Here’s that list in no particular order: efforts to preserve; leading to; sometimes; accused of; suspicious; it was possible; almost; will probably; about; only a few; also sometimes; subject of efforts; going to try; I think; can represent; service doesn’t consider; probably.

Surely these a true scientific terms? Of course not. They are never intended to be. These words and others are designed to remove the scientific process from our sources of information and replace it with vague terms, often sounding good, promising the best for the animals and trying not to present the demise of the property of people as anything to be concerned with – especially as it isn’t going to effect the vast majority of ignorant, autonomic readers directly.

This has become so effective that we commonly hear of efforts underway to destroy one species of animal in order to better “protect” another. The spotted owl comes to mind.

Here’s is part of a problem that contributes to the big picture. The last sentence in the linked-to article says: “At some point it [bald eagle] will reach carrying capacity,” he said. “But I think there’s plenty of room for more eagles.” As it turns out, the term “carrying capacity” is a misnomer. People are led to believe that so long as there is enough food and general habitat, the world can be filled to the maximum with any and every kind of animal species, while never once considering the consequences of those actions. This is fallout from the lie spread throughout everywhere of “natural regulation” – the false ideology that if man would just butt out, all these animals would magically limit their numbers, eventually bringing them to “carrying capacity.” Kumbaya!

What is the “carrying capacity” of bad eagles in your neighbor? Nobody knows. It’s a guesstimate. The above scientist was quoted as saying, “I think” there’s room for more eagles. He doesn’t know but he “thinks” and thus are we to accept that his value-weighted perspective is the scientific gospel? How does he get to decide? If we are to fill the forest and fields with the maximum number of eagles it can hold (carrying capacity) do we further risk all the other species of prey in order to embellish one scientist or group of scientists’ pet animal project?

Evidently this is the case.

 

RMEF Renews Support for Foundation for Wildlife Management

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is providing $25,000 in grant funding to assist the Foundation for Wildlife Management (F4WM) with wolf control efforts in Idaho.

“RMEF strongly supports the North American Wildlife Conservation Model which emphasizes the importance of wildlife management so all populations can thrive and be forever sustained,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “That includes predator management, especially in areas where wolves and other predators have profound impacts on elk and other wildlife.”

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) reported a minimum of 786 wolves at the end of 2015 which is more than 600 percent above original agreed upon minimum recovery goals. Biologists also documented a minimum of 108 packs across the state and an additional 20 packs with territories that overlap into Montana, Washington and Wyoming.

“IDFG has stated time and time again that wolves in several areas have unacceptable impacts on elk and other wildlife. This funding will enhance trapping efforts to assist F4WM in the work,” added Allen.

The F4WM also received $25,000 in RMEF funding in 2016.

RMEF is committed to supporting wolf management and has done so by funding grants in Idaho alone totaling $150,000 since 2013.

Socially Acceptable Levels of Nonsense

It’s beyond foolishness that fish and game departments across this totalitarian nation – that thinks it’s a democracy – aim to implement “socially acceptable levels” of wild animals as it pertains to their legislative mandates to “manage” them. Wildlife management is a science – even though more often than not that science is severely fouled through Scientism, outcome-based pseudo science, environmental idealism, Romance Biology, Voo-Doo Science, or just plain political bias. Make way for “socially acceptable levels” of wildlife injected into what once was a scientific process formulated in the best interest of the people, the health of the animals and the desire to utilize a natural resource for the benefit of providing a food source and continuing a heritage that has been a part of human survival since The Great Flood.

In order to be transparent and forthcoming, let me say right up front that if the real, honest, scientific process determined that any and/or all hunting should stop, for the purpose of sustaining a game species, I would support that. I have in the past.

This “social acceptance” nonsense rose to recognition right along with Environmentalism and the perversion of Animal Rights. Much because the American person has been so misguided in their understanding as to what purpose animals have on this planet, that existence has risen to such a psychopathic level that we witness, as a common element within our society, of, not only humans living, eating, bathing, and sleeping with their pets, but offering these animals a perceived right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, equal to or greater than those of men. Utter nonsense and far beyond the realm of human intelligence.

Now we are witness to fish and game departments, caving in to the mental illness of equal existence of man and animal, that somehow it has become necessary to bastardize and pervert what was left of honest, scientific, wildlife management in order that people get to express their tolerance levels of wild animals – based on nothing but one’s manipulated perception, formulated on selfishness, greed, laziness and a myriad of other emotional factors and useless, non-redeeming social values.

Perhaps the only half-sensible level of tolerance that should be considered is that of public safety. However, are we to accept the idealism of some city slicker, who has never seen a moose, bear, turkey, deer, or downhill-side-badger, as a legitimate means of managing wildlife? Nobody wants to run the risk of running into a large wild animal with their car and getting hurt, even if they are too stupid to know when to slow down or to slow down at all. Few understand the real risk of confronting large predators due to distorted views allowed to be presented. Aren’t these issues something that should be decided by science and not socially progressive emotional clap-trap?

In what other things in our life are we asked of our “socially acceptable levels?” Please don’t confuse “socially acceptable” with economic tolerances, although in some wildlife management issues, some level of economic tolerance exists.

Does the EPA consult with the people, i.e. sending out surveys and questionnaires to get a sense of how much the public will stand for their fascists dictations?

Does the Department’s of Transportation, actively seek social tolerances with automobile drivers as to how many deaths by vehicular destruction is acceptable? Do they do the same before setting the speed limit, building or repairing roads?

Does the Department of Energy and Defense consult with you and I about our social acceptance of the number of nuclear weapons or the need for war?

Are we consulted with what our tolerances are with the military and U.S. Government spraying chemicals daily in our skies over us?

Even in fake, government shams like “Global Warming,” you and I aren’t consulted with as to what our tolerance level is as to the amount of carbon dioxide we are willing to “suffer” with.

We have been told for decades now that man explored space and landed on the moon. When was the last time you were probed as to your social acceptance of rockets in space and vast amounts of resources, time and money it took to pull this off?

Are we consulted for social acceptance as to how many trees get cut, fields get planted and harvested, or who gets to place their land in Tree Farm status?

This list is endless and yet, science be goddamned, it has become necessary for officials within our fish and game departments to consult with mentally ill animal perverts, even placing them on department committees, in order to figure out how much people can take. Who made that decision? What a joke. And how irresponsible can it be, to pretend to somehow balance sound and responsible wildlife management with the demands of environmentalists and animal perverts?

Maine is in the process of wasting time devising copy and paste game management plans so they can continue to be eligible for Federal funds. The latest laugh comes from plans to decide how many wild turkeys is “socially acceptable” to Maine people.

According to George Smith’s article, the Department wants to have enough turkeys for “viewing”: ““Ensure public satisfaction with the turkey population by providing hunting and viewing opportunity and minimizing conflicts with landowners.””

If you haven’t been to Maine recently, the traffic is extremely heavy with idiots wanting to view wild turkeys. Give me a break! Does anyone have a brain anymore? Are we so stupid as to forego everything sensible because we fear political correctness (censorship)? Cannot they see that this sham of “social tolerance” is nothing more than a guise to rid the world of the things environmentalists don’t like while protecting their own. This is totalitarianism and doesn’t even resemble the next worse thing – democracy.

If fish and game departments haven’t the collective brains to have an understanding of “what the market will bear” (no pun intended), then fire them…or better yet, don’t hire them to begin with. Science is first and foremost. To go out seeking public input about social acceptances within a scientific process is fools folly. They should be able to get a good sample of the real population’s tolerances by listening to the phone ring with complaints.

To pimp the rides of environmentalists is playing their totalitarian games. This nonsense needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. It’s a waste of time, energy and money. Fish and game departments should be applying the real scientific process to wildlife and game management, while considering the recreational value of such management, combined with public safety. If they haven’t figure this child’s game out yet, then what good are they? Get rid of all of them and find those who got a clue.

 

My Perspective on Maine Fish and Wildlife’s “Great Achievements”

I think I read someplace that confidence was the expectation of something positive happening. That may be true, but why isn’t the expectation of something negative happening, also confidence?

I’ve also heard other people say that when we wake up in the morning, we have a choice to be either positive or negative. I don’t think so. Making such a choice can remove a person from the realities of life. What is misunderstood in this reality is that realists, who neither “choose” to be positive or negative, are somehow sad, depressed or ignorant people, lacking in good judgement, a clear mind and the ability to accomplish great achievements. One’s perspective isn’t right or wrong. It’s just a perspective.

Marcus Aurelius once wrote: “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is perspective, not the truth.” Perhaps, but I don’t think so, at least in its entirety. What I do think is that everything is based on one’s perspective and, as such, we should spend more time learning about what drives, not only our own, but other people’s perspectives.

If confidence is the expectation that something positive is going to happen, I can clearly observe that my perspective on whether something happens, good or bad, can differ tremendously with others. For example.

Yesterday I read V. Paul Reynolds weekly article in which he writes that the future of wildlife management in Maine “is in good hands.” To make this claim depends on a person’s perspective. What then drives the perspective?

Helen Keller once said, “Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence.” Optimism must drive perspective. If Keller is correct, that “optimism is the faith,” then optimism is not a tangible thing we can grasp but something we choose to cling to in order to influence our perspective. What, then, drives optimism? Perhaps it’s perspective. Or, maybe we have just created a vicious circle that accomplishes nothing but the establishment of feeling good outside the realm of reality. Such talk reminds me of a Human Interaction class conducted by National Training Laboratories – a product of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

We stereotype an ostrich as a creature that sticks its head in the sand – the analogy to man being that what you can’t see won’t hurt you and if you can’t see it, you won’t have to deal with it. Optimism can be a form of “ostrichism” if there’s no reality or practical experience to go along with it. So we are back around to perspective again.

Insanity is said to be doing the same exercise repeatedly, never changing approach but always having “hope and confidence” that the outcome will be different or the one desired. Sanity, therefore tells us that once you’ve observed the same failures (those failures based upon one’s perspective) there leaves little “optimism” (it is the faith) that something positive will happen and a great deal of “confidence” that it won’t. From that perspective, therefore, is the person who operates this way negative? Are they lacking confidence? Are they not optimistic, starving for hope and confidence, void of ostrichism?

I guess the answer to that can only come from your perspective.

Perhaps I have helped you to see how silly much of all this is…oh, darn…at least from the perspective of a realist whose every day is spent searching real truths and not man’s truths.

As a realist, with a perspective that I admit is much different than most, it is difficult to stick my head in the clouds somewhere and hope for good (my perspective) outcomes based on somebody’s perspective that’s different from mine, but foremost a perspective of wishful and whimsical thinking, whose foundation is circulus in probando – circle in proving, or circular thinking/logic.

Where does this all lead?

The other day I thought that, as a treat for some readers, I would make a list of all the good things (my perspective) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) have accomplished in the field of hunting and trapping this year. Please bear in mind that from my perspective I’m looking for accomplishments that go above and beyond the daily routine of what any fish and wildlife department should be doing. Normal, accepted mediocrity is, in itself, another form of “ostrichism,” is it not?

I sat down with paper and pen and began to write. Well, I didn’t really begin to write. I began to think. I even asked for some help. The help I got mostly confirmed about the only good thing (my perspective) I could come up with.

Last year, environmentalists and animal rights perverts laid another voting referendum on the Maine people in an attempt to put an end to bear hunting and trapping. The great thing (my perspective) that MDIFW did was, in recognition that success at the polls to pass such a referendum would strip the department of necessary tools to responsibly manage and care for black bears, members of the department, with the blessings of the Commissioner and Governor, got involved in the process of defeating the proposal.

Even when the environmentalists and animal rights perverts got their undies in a bunch over that participation, the courts said no harm no foul. It was a highlight for me (my perspective) to see the MIDFW take ownership of the job they are entrusted to do and do it without any outward fear of lawsuits and retaliations. This action was above the normal mediocrity and the path of least resistance.

We should see more of it.

So that’s it. I know there are many readers out there who choose to be the eternal optimist (suffering from a touch of “ostrichitis”) and believe (their perspective) that MDIFW does many, many things of great achievement. I disagree. I think they do an adequate job in many things, terrible job in others, and carry out great achievement seldom.

This is intended to be a positive act (my perspective) and so I’ll end it with that.

Maine’s Seemingly Endless Debate on Sunday Hunting

I’ll give George Smith, a writer and sportsman’s activist from Maine, credit for sticking with something he believes in. It appears he is just about the last survivor to advocate for Sunday Hunting in Maine. Smith says we will never hunt on Sundays in Maine, and he probably is correct. As a matter of fact, I’ll take that claim one step further and say the days that we actually will be able to hunt, are numbered. With the continued, unchecked, onslaught by animal rights groups and environmentalists, combined with the influx of newly indoctrinated wildlife biologists, and the myriad of other environmental movements nationwide, hunting will soon be a thing of the past – perhaps in my lifetime.

There are several issues about Sunday Hunting that appear to be stumbling blocks. Let’s address a few.

Religious reasons. I’m going to guess this is another example of the pitfalls of socialistic democracy, in which two wolves and a sheep are discussing what’s for lunch. If the majority of Mainers, who go to church, do so on Sunday and they view that day as somehow “holier” than the others, their socio-democratic power trumps everybody else.

There is a bit more to this as we have seen in the past. I can’t seem to find a link to the story but if my memory isn’t completely shot, I recall, if not in Maine, somewhere, where some who choose to recognize Saturdays as the sabbath, proposed legislation that would allow them to hunt on Sundays. Of course that was shot down. I have serious doubts that very many people would actually not hunt on Sundays because it’s their sabbath. Hypocrisy abounds in that area.

Another aspect would be the fallout that may or may not create less land access. Some land owners have threatened to post their land if Sunday hunting is permitted. Whether and how much that would actually happen, I don’t know. I do know that in some states where much land is posted and/or land is considered closed without owner’s permission, access to hunting lands is difficult at best and in some cases, with the exception of public lands, hunters have to pay, sometimes hefty amounts, to “lease” a portion of private land. Unless you’ve been relegated to that, I don’t think you really want to go there.

The other issue in Sunday hunting is seldom seriously discussed. In Maine, as in many states, hunting is used as a means of “managing” (control) the population of all game species. For deer hunting, the state also uses a permit system that regulates and controls deer populations within Wildlife Management Districts. The bottom line is this: wildlife regulators decide how many of which species should be harvested each year and do what is necessary to achieve those goals…usually.

If we look at deer hunting as one example, game managers have an idea of how many deer will need to be harvested, by different methods, utilizing permits, along with length of season and all other factors that effect the harvest. Some of those factors are not controllable. One that is, is the length of season. In my lifetime, I have seen the deer hunting season in Maine shortened to barely two weeks – the need being a lack of deer and protecting the herd to remain at safe sustainable levels.

So what if Maine added, not just 3 or 4 more days to the annual deer hunt (you can also use this to extrapolate out to all other game species, i.e. turkey, grouse, bear, moose, etc.) but that those added days were on the weekends? We know that the busiest hunting days during the deer season are Saturdays. If Sundays were added, how many more net hunters would there be? How many more hunters would skip a working day in order to hunt on Sundays? How great would hunter participation become?

We have had the claim beaten into our brains for years now that Maine and her economy are suffering because hunters won’t hunt in Maine because there is no Sunday hunting. If that is true, then the question has to be asked, how many more hunters will now hunt Maine, especially on Sundays?

This all adds up to one large question. If Sunday hunting for deer is allowed, how many more deer will be killed? If there is an increase, what is the extent of that increase and will it force the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to shorten the season in order to mitigate the losses of deer due to harvest? If Maine was overrun with deer, this would not be a problem. With or without Sunday hunting, if the state was overrun with deer, the season would be extended and/or the limits may increase to more than one deer per season. Too few deer, and the results are reversed.

I personally, have no interest in angering the landowners. Whether or not a Sunday hunting move would seriously effect land access, is a guess. I will state that I believe in the short term, there will be a knee-jerk reaction to Sunday hunting and land will be posted that wasn’t before. How that trend evolves will really depend on the realities of what takes place on that land, that is different from the present, that would cause more or a continuation of reduced land access.

If an added Sunday hunt resulted in a shortened season, that would mean more hunters in the woods at any one time. I don’t like that idea at all. Safety must also be a concern. Maine has an outstanding track record when it comes to hunter and public safety during the hunting seasons.

I think the bottom line should be deer management. Yes, Maine should consider ways of maximizing the positive influences and effects of hunting seasons, but the bottom line should always remain, what is best for the deer herd and landowner relations.

A final issue that is seldom discussed or is presented in the wrong way, in my opinion, is the rights of landowners. I get a sense from reading Smith’s article about Sunday hunting that every effort to implement some form of Sunday hunting in Maine is a serious loss for hunters and Maine’s community, without consideration of protecting the rights of landowners first and foremost.

I am first a property rights advocate and then a hunter. Yes, I am saddened with each passing year that I see more and more land posted to access, but that is and should be their right. But I also believe that those landowners who post their land, should limit their involvement in hunting issues that involve land access. In other words, there is little credibility in anyone with posted land stating that they didn’t believe a Sunday hunt would have any real effect on land access. Hello?

As Maine citizens, we should be glad the majority of people are looking out for the rights of the landowners. We hear of how wildlife management, which includes hunting and trapping, is beneficial to the landowner. I couldn’t agree more, which makes me tend to emphasize that all the effort that has been expended attempting to promote Sunday hunting, could better be spent educating the landowner to the advantages of the North American Model for Wildlife Management, i.e. managing for surplus harvest, and that leaving their land open has it’s benefits. Landowners should also be taught how they can control the access to their land to meet their wishes and still reap the benefits of wildlife management – hunting and trapping.

Perhaps someday, Maine will have Sunday hunting, but without it, as things currently stand, giving the drums a rest would probably be in the best interest of hunting, while shifting the effort to increasing better landowner relationships.

Sensible Statement About Predators

“The issue is not wolves, it’s the combination of wolves, grizzly bears, black bears and cougars,” Bob Jamieson, a systems ecologist and environmental consultant, told the paper. “The prey species can’t handle the combined impact of those four animals,” he said. “A lot of people [blame] habitat problems because they don’t want [to] wrap their head around the predator issue.”<<<Read More>>>

Wake Zone, Op-Ed – May 22, 2036 Watch What The Future Holds:

*Editor’s Note* – This Op Ed, written by John Kolezar, first appeared in the Western Outdoor Times. It is republished here with permission from the author.

‘The End Of The World As We Know It’

‘This is the end’… Jim Morrison, 1967

The annual hunting season, long declared to be barbaric by the social media watchdogs, was officially cancelled today by the Arizona Species Specialists, a group of environmentally sensitive and morally conscious individuals who report to the chair of the Prohibited Actions On Public Lands Committee.

While the demise of the hunting practice has long been predicted, today’s announcement came as a mild surprise to those who had hoped that the recreational activity might hold on for a few more years. The following is a re-cap of events that precipitated the announcement.

We Should Have Seen It Coming

In 2016

In 2016, then President Obama declared over 1.7 million acres of the Grand Canyon area to be declared a National Monument. Not satisfied with the restrictions imposed on land use by the monument designation, members of the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife filed suit in federal court in 2017 to have access denied to all but bird watchers, sightseers and certain government officials. Their claims of “Monument Degradation” was the first step in the cornerstone of limited access to public lands.

In 2018

In 2018, the Horses Forever group filed suit in federal court to have more open spaces for the Wild Horse and Burro Act. The judge, upon hearing that no one could prove that the horses were not long lost descendants of the Spanish Conquistadors, found in favor of the Horses Forever group and declared that the whole of Arizona andNevada that was not within designated city limits be declared open range for horses and burros.

The decision was challenged in court by the then Arizona Game & Fish Department but ultimately the Supreme Court found in favor of the plaintiffs and virtually all of Arizona and Nevada became refuge land for wild horses and burros.

In 2022

In 2022, with water in extremely short supply, the President of the United States declared that while Congress had debated for years, he was declaring a state of emergency for the entire Southwest. The states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were placed on population-reduction quotas that mandated within a five (5)-year time frame, the populations needed to be reduced by more than 20 percent.

The general consensus at the time was that sustainability graphs proved the entire Southwest could not survive without population reduction. Included in the population counts were all people and animals that weighed over 100 pounds. The carrying capacity index that the government installed in 2020 showed that the Wild horse and Burro Act took precedence over most other Wildlife and particularly non-essential Wildlife such as deer and Elk.

With the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act regarding Mexican gray wolves and Northern gray wolves, fawn and calf survival rates plummeted for what had been large herds of deer and Elk.

In 2024

In 2024, the “Year of the Drought”, Wildlife other than horses and burros, were effectively removed from all federal lands by federal sharpshooters. These were the same sharpshooters that culled over 500 head of bison/buffalo in 2017 from the grand canyon national park. Senate and Congressional inquiries on how every single bison/buffalo had been culled have been ongoing for over 15 years.

The sharpshooters were able to lethally cull over 20,000 deer and Elk within a single year. It had been determined in that same year that all hunting of predators was illegal and they were needed to remove what few animals remained in the wild on federal lands.

In 2025

In 2025, The Center for Biological Diversity filed a massive lawsuit against the United States Fish & WildlifeService. They had discovered that cell anomalies within snakes, lizards and certain plants meant that every individual snake, lizard and plant within a 200 mile radius of PHOENIX was to be declared an “Endangered Species”.

Reproductive anomalies created wide genetic variations within each species. Their lawsuit brought the total number of ESA species to a staggering 495 different species in Arizona alone.

The Fish & Wildlife Service agreed to place drone patrols over much of Arizona. Drivers of vehicles on asphalt roads are now required to give right of way to all rodents, snakes, and plants. Driving on gravel roads is prohibited on federal lands.

In 2027

In 2027, the activity known as “hunting” was challenged by the group “We Are All Animals”, or “WAAA” as they later became known as. In an unprecedented case, it was determined that there was no proven need to kill any animal outside of approved government “Compassionate Dispatch” shelters.

The Vegan Society proved that there was no need for consumption of dead meat and that all nutrients could be obtained through genetically modified plants, herbs and spices. It was the first time that hunting was challenged in court and the Supreme Court, that coincidentally had five justices who were avowed vegans, upheld the lower vegan court decision.

The Compassionate Dispatch centers now employ over 125,000 inmates from various penitentiaries around the United States to compassionately end life for all creatures that have lived their natural lives. Those lives have a pre-determined length based on species. The case, however, only applied to federal land animals.

In 2029

In 2029, after years of dwindling economic support from killers/hunters, all Pittman Robinson monies that had previously been from the sales of hunting-related items were re-dedicated to support of the Wild Horse and Burro Act for Arizona and Nevada. With the advancement of technology, activated drones were capable of determining if armed humans were participating in attempting to perform hunting activities on federal lands.

Through presidential decree, those drones were armed with micro-chip darts that could not be removed from a person if implanted. Those few souls who attempted to hunt on federal lands and were found to have the chip fired into their person by the drones were sentenced to 20 years probation after five years of federal penitentiary lock up.

Humanities classes and sensitivity training for 60 hours per week were deemed minimum parts of their incarceration.

In 2031

In 2031, state organizations cropped up that attempted to outlaw hunting on state lands. One of the more successful groups, “Humans and Animals in Harmony” (also called “HAAH”) began a successful campaign in the state educational system where they showed that the activity of hunting was traced to a particular gene which could be altered in a child while the child was still in the mother’s womb.

Efforts to identify the gene are still in clinical trial status, but hope is held that future generations of children will have the gene completely removed. The only complaints to date have been that those who had the gene removed are generally docile, complacent and frequently need reassurance that they are loved.

In 2034

In 2034, the State of Arizona declared that the Arizona Wildlife Enhancement Division, formerly called the Arizona Game & Fish Department – which was financially destitute from lack of funding via license sales – be merged into the State Parks Division. All 36 employees, including those who count the few remaining deer and Elk, are now Park personnel.

Their jobs will be to continue issuing citations for anyone who leaves either asphalt or paved roads in their all-terrain vehicles. Those vehicles, once numbering in the thousands, have plummeted since over 80 percent ofArizona has been declared National Monument land with little or no access for travel. A recent survey on the Web site Tellusallyourthoughts.com confirmed that over 95 percent of all residents approve of the transformation and that those who disagreed were either incredibly stupid or part of the crazy old timer generation.

Think This Can’t Happen?

Think this can’t happen? Watch what the future holds for those who love to hunt. We are being systematically removed from that which we love to do and very few people are taking any actions to stop the freight train of political correctness.

JK

When Pocket Warming is Perceived as Being Global

This morning I was reading an article in Scientific American. I have decided not to provide a link to the story, because I’m sick and tired of providing readers with links to go and read mostly utter nonsense – or as Jim Beers calls it, Romance Biology and the marriage of Romance Biology and Voodoo Science.

There are places where moose generally are found in the Lower 48 States, where moose are struggling to sustain. Of course outcome-based voodoo science, combined with Romance Biology, yields but one answer – Climate Change (this used to be called Global Warming.) Some portions of Alaska appear to show signs of changes due to climate fluctuations but to read about it, one would think the bush will soon become the new haven for bikini-clad Spring breakers.

What’s puzzling in all of this is that these so-called scientists love to extol the negative effects of their small-minded thinking about climate change, and yet never do we hear about the other changes that one would think should be taking place if the warming actually exists. For instance, in Maine, it seems the excuse-du-jour for a shrinking moose population is the infestation of winter ticks caused by…wait for it…a warming climate. (This statement is made when nobody, as near as I can tell, has ever really studied up on what’s available for scientific data of winter ticks. If they had, they would be a bit skeptical to continue blaming winter ticks on warming.) If this subtle(?) bit of warming, which I doubt Maine is experiencing upon examination of the past 10 winters, so greatly and quickly effects the moose population, then one might suspect that because of the warming, the white-tail deer would be thriving, along with other species that do well in a warmer climate.

The excuse-du-jour for white-tail deer is that the animal in Maine is at the northern fringe of its habitat and that the deer does really well in warmer climates. So, if the moose is moving north, because of climate change, it should make sense that the white-tail deer is also moving north, along with alligators and boa constrictors.

Weather patterns are always changing – always have been and I suspect always will. We like to blame man because the moose in many parts of the contiguous United States, mostly disappeared due to over hunting. I’m not dumb enough to think man didn’t contribute a lot to over hunting of the moose, but maybe fluctuations in weather patters (real climate change) contributed to it as well, and beginning in the 1980s in Maine, conditions were right to promote moose growth, coupled with better moose management. And, perhaps the increase in winter ticks is as much due to an overgrown population of moose as it is to someone’s perception of a warming climate.

It amazes me how scientists take a broad, sweeping stroke with their brushes when conducting a very small, in comparison, geographical-area study that might show signs of a fluctuation in climate, i.e. some warming, and then declare the globe is warming, and yet temperature readings GLOBALLY do not reflect that. Perhaps in that one pocket temperatures are different.

Back in February of 2010, I attempted to explain the differences between GLOBAL warming and what I began calling POCKET warming:

The use of the term global warming has morphed into a generic excuse for anything under the sun (pun sort of intended). When the term global warming is used, it is assumed to mean the man-made variety. That has since evolved into climate change and other assorted descriptive names like climate disruption.

There are at least two locations here in the U.S. where moose populations are on the decline. Ed Bangs, wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said moose in Yellowstone National Park [are] on the decline due to “climate disruption”, that moose are too sensitive to the warmth. He said that moose will then lie around and wait for wolves to show up and eat them to save them from the climate disruption pain and suffering.

In Minnesota, moose populations are on the decline and once again officials point a finger at global warming. But it can’t be global warming because all around both of these areas the moose are doing quite well. So we either have Pocket Warming or, God forbid, something else in common. I wonder what it could be?

There’s lots of money to be made studying climate change. Like seeking a cure for cancer, it will never happen provided the money keeps pouring in for more studies. One of the very negative results of excuse-du-jour climate change is that it is always presented, like cancer, as an incurable disease. This becomes a “convenient truth” (excuse) and the answer to everything. While this blinded nonsense continues, nothing is learned and nothing changes.

 

Failure To Launch – The Brain That Is

When writing “Failure to Launch,” I’m not talking about someone’s psychological retardation and their inability, for perhaps several reasons, to leave the nest and get away from the nanny strings of mommy and daddy. No, I’m talking about a person, either mentally challenged or a deliberate liar, to promote personal agendas, who, blinded by hatred, can’t engage the brain to understand a very basic concept.

A recent opinion piece found in Maine’s Kennebec Journal exemplifies the above. The writer, known statewide to be just a tad bit on the eccentric side, fails to get his brain around certain facts that present a completely different perspective on how wildlife management works. He writes: “…90 percent of Mainers do not hunt, and that nonconsumptive users (wildlife watchers) outnumber and outspend consumptive users in Maine…” blah, blah, blah.

When a person has failure to launch their brains to a level high enough to know when is a good time to get out of the rain, they cannot understand that just because 20-30% of Maine residents hunt, trap and fish, the majority of those 70-80% understand and support the North American Model of Wildlife Management, which includes consumptive use as a tool to sustain and maintain healthy populations of wildlife in order that nonthinking people haters can enjoy watching wildlife FOR FREE – courtesy of the consumers they want to hate on.

It’s easy to declare that “wildlife watchers” outspend the hunters, fishermen and trappers, so long as they don’t consider the billions of dollars these terrible members of Maine’s public spend in order that wildlife watchers have wildlife to gawk at. Did I already tell you that their pastime is paid for by the hunters, trappers and fishermen?

Get a life!

JackNicholson