December 19, 2014

WHINE: Wolves Can Be Shot on Private Land Within National Park

“The Wyoming Game & Fish Department will take the lead in responding to wildlife management issues on privately-owned lands within the park, and will coordinate with park staff when necessary and appropriate,”<<<Read More>>>

Insanity and Diversions

Insanity is running rampant in our world, filling the airwaves and media platforms with tons of diversions, i.e. meaningless, nonsense. Here’s some examples:

1. Logging leads to long-term release of carbon from soils in Northeastern hardwood forests

This report is loaded with “maybes” and “mights,” all classical examples of “creating new knowledge” and “shifting paradigms.” Utter useless nonsense.

2. New Jersey bear hunt fueled by emotion over mauling death

Blow-back from the bear mauling death of a Rutgers University Student, delusional people, more interested in romantic notions of bears, blame everyone and everything for why bears attack people. In this case, let’s blame it on hunting and sound proven wildlife management. Remember, these clowns have been brainwashed into believing that “we must change the way in which we discuss wildlife management.”

3. California bans coyote hunts that offer prizes

From the article linked to above, we read: “Awarding prizes for wildlife killing contests is both unethical and inconsistent with our modern understand[ing] of natural systems.” By some totalitarian socialist it is perceived as unethical and because of intense training since birth, believe it is their appointed duty to force their ethics down the throats of other people. However, note the part of the comment that says that coyote derbies WITH PRIZES, is, “inconsistent with our modern understanding of natural systems.” (emphasis added)

This is another classic example of the ongoing effort to “create new understanding,” and “create new knowledge,” and “changing the way we discuss wildlife management.” Modern understanding is absolute post-normal, new-science, scientism at its finest. Also, utter nonsense.

4. More lynx being trapped in Maine, but reasons in dispute

Blinded by hatred of American heritage, all things normal and humans in general, in Maine, totalitarian, animal rights booger men say that because Maine was issued an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for trapping by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, more Canada lynx are being caught in traps. The idiocy here is that the only thing, as it pertains to trapping, that has changed is that Maine designated 22,000 acres of public lands to protect the Canada lynx. None of the already strict trapping guidelines have changed from the Consent Decree that was signed and in affect until such time as an ITP could be obtained.

So, what has changed that might be causing a few more Canada lynx to be “incidentally” caught and released unharmed? How about the fact that when lynx were declared a “threatened” species in Maine, the lie was there were fewer than 500 of the animals. Today, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife guesstimate there are closer to 1,000 – 1,500. One with a brain might conclude that having 2 to 3 times the number of Canada lynx might play a role in a few more lynx being “incidentally” trapped and released unharmed. But let’s not let sensibility stand in the way of human hatred and animal perversion.

Idaho Fish and Game Commission Directs Agency to Return to Citizen Mandated Consumptive Wildlife Management

IDFGLogo2*Editor’s Note* – George Dovel, editor of The Outdoorsman, is the master of truthful, accurate reporting/journalism of Idaho’s outdoors. With his life-long pride of accuracy and substantiation of information made available to the public, his reputation cannot be outdone by anyone. It is for this reason, “someone” sought out Mr. Dovel in order to allow him to break to the public this news, that, quite frankly, still has me baffled.

I am deeply humbled that Mr. Dovel has provided to me his story with a request to publish it beyond The Outdoorsman and offer my own comments. He writes: “I’m emailing this to [you] now and I hope you publish it with whatever comments you may choose.”

I had not seriously thought such an action as is described below was possible. In addition to remaining the perpetual skeptic that I was born to be, this action to return Idaho’s fish and game management to what it was voted to be in 1938 by the citizens of Idaho and reinforced in 2012 with a constitutional amendment to protect hunting, trapping and fishing, I cannot believe that this effort will not go unmolested by those, I am sure, who must be boiling with anger inside.

While not a cure all, and is sure to have little effect on the mass movement to “create new knowledge” and “change the way we discuss wildlife management,” which is the foundation of the destruction of real, scientific wildlife management, what an incredible bright spot, in consideration of the bravery of those Idaho commissioners, and seemingly IDFG’s Director Virgil Moore, that the windfall of brainwashed paradigm-shifted, nonsense being perpetuated by agenda-driven environmentalists, hasn’t completely taken over everyone’s minds.

What has, at least since wolf (re)introduction, been the co-option of normal fish and game management by post normal science management into Idaho’s Fish and Game Department, we can certainly expect real opposition to this effort and creative ways to destroy what has now been started.

George Dovel has written for years that IDFG did not have the right to rewrite or make up how they wanted to operate as a government wildlife management agency. I have read so many times his words, they are burned into my brain – “IDFG has to get approval from the Legislature” to alter management of wildlife.

It is not mere coincidence that we are now seeing Dovel’s efforts pay off.

If for no other reason, please, please, please, subscribe to The Outdoorsman and/or make a donation so that this valuable resource will never be lost. It costs lots of money to create and publish this work and it can’t be done by one man and his meager resources. Please click on the link to the right of this page, print out a subscription form and help support this valuable cause. Thank you!

The NEW Idaho Fish and Game Agenda
Please Read This Carefully and Save It
By George Dovel

(NOTE: In March of 2004, I quit working within the system as Gov. Phil Batt had recommended nine years earlier, and began publishing this new version of The Outdoorsman. Thirty years earlier when we halted the original paid publication, it had accomplished its goal and a new Fish and Game Director, with help from thousands of hunters and their legislators, demanded a return to honesty and scientifically managed game populations.

The following emails forwarded from Commission Chairman Fred Trevey to former F&G Commissioner Tony McDermott last month, prove what can happen when Fish and Game Commissioners with courage and integrity are provided the facts they need to do their job: – ED)

From: fred.trevey@idfg.idaho.gov
To: mcmule@msn.com
Subject: FW: The Contact-September 2014
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 16:30:17 +0000

Tony–FOR YOUR INFORMATION. Below are my comments to our sportsman’s coffee last week and the communication to all employees we asked Virgil to send out. The message is clear—we are in the fishing, hunting and trapping business. I’ll send you some more info stuff later as we dial in direction that reflects the commission’s expectations.

SPORTSMAN’S COFFEE —– SEPTEMBER 9, 2014
–LAP will remain unchanged (brief background) –Focus on Mission–75th anniversary
75 years ago, the Fish & Game Mission was set by citizen initiative in 1938. It is set forth in Idaho Code 36-103 (a) “Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”

This mission statement provides a clear and definitive statement directing the conservation of all of Idaho’s wildlife and also equally clear direction to manage wildlife for “continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping”.

The majority of Idahoan’s values relative to wildlife have remained essentially unchanged over the past 75 years.
The initiative creating the mission was approved by 76% of voters in 1938 and the Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap passed by 75% in 2012. Further, the amendment highlights the preferred method of managing Idaho’s wildlife populations is regulated hunting, fishing and trapping.

However, today there is a small group of folks that do not believe in consumptive use of wildlife and would prefer management that permits a “let nature to take its course” philosophy. They especially disagree with predator management.

The Commission firmly disagrees with this philosophy.

Our current economic model of funding based predominantly on hunter and angler user fees has long served us well and it is the main reason wildlife populations recovered after market hunting nearly wiped out big game early in the 20th century.

From time to time in the life of any organization it is important to step back and take stock of how well the organization is holding true to its mission.

Given the pressures the Commission experiences that seek to change or at least adopt modifications to the basic mission, (which by the way we have no authority to do—only the legislature can and I very much doubt that will happen any time soon) we decided to ask the Director to help us reconfirm the Department’s dedication to the basic mission and focus Department personnel on managing our fish and wildlife resources, using scientific principles, for PEOPLE as job number one. It has been proven through the years that if this job is done well, then all wildlife benefits, thereby satisfying both consumptive and non-consumptive desires. Sportsmen need to be proud of their support and accomplishment through the years.

This week the Director will provide direction to all Department personnel concerning the expectations outlined in the 1938 Mission statement. And, that the Department’s primary role and responsibility is to manage fish and wildlife for people to have the opportunity to continue to enjoy hunting, fishing and trapping.

From: Moore,Virgil Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 1:20 PM Subject: The Contact-September 2014
Idaho Fish and Game Director’s Newsletter September 2014 From the Director’s Office [Director Virgil Moore]

Director Responds to Confluence Café Report

I have reviewed the Confluence Café report http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/internal/email/contact/confluence/2014_0521_IDFG_ConfluenceCafeSummary.pdf from the 2014 ISTS and I promised to share my perspectives about the input provided, and how I intend to put it to use. The theme of ISTS this year was to focus on Fish and Game’s financial state (“Are we in business?”) and an evaluation of our budgeted activities (“What business are we in?”). I focused on the results that are related to the Idaho Fish and Game mission from Round 4 of the Café that asked the questions: What most needs our collective focused attention and what will this require? and Suggested Actions of the Café as information for IFG leadership to use as it rolls up the collective thinking of IFG staff to strategically position programs and revenue. Information about our financial state and internal communication actions from this Café exercise will be a separate communication coming out soon.

We structured the ISTS to provide you with an overview of, and refresher about the Idaho Fish and Game mission, our public trust responsibilities, including hearing from trustees (Commissioners and legislators) and beneficiaries (hunters, anglers and various publics) so we as managers would better understand our legal responsibilities to this public trust. I believe the speaker panels illustrated the challenges we face in meeting those responsibilities. While I am committed to using many of the suggestions you collectively identified in the Café document to help all of us be a more effective management team, there are several key themes in the Café report that I will not take any action on. These are specifically related to our mission, agency name and use of general tax funds. Some examples from the Café summary are:

· The role of the Department is to provide wildlife opportunities (e.g. harvest, viewing) to the public. This broader view is inconsistent with the current funding model. · The scope of Fish & Game services goes beyond sport activities. The Department’s name and brand should reflect the breadth of its services.

· Change the name of the Department to better reflect its mission (the mission is beyond “fish and game”).

· Modify the mission statement to explicitly include management of wildlife habitat (not just wildlife), and recognition of the intrinsic values and non-consumptive uses of fish and wildlife.

· Get general funding or sales tax for non-game and plant habitat work.

My message to all of you about our name and Mission is simple and hopefully crystal clear – I do not support any actions that recommend a change in the Fish and Game name, Mission, components of our logo or moving away from the user pay/user benefit funding model as our dominant revenue stream to the Fish and Game budgets.

The Fish and Game Mission and name were set by citizen initiative in 1938, gaining approval of 76% of the voters. The Mission Statement therefore belongs to the public and it is not within agency or commission purview to change. The Mission not only includes a clear and definitive statement directing the conservation (preserve, protect, perpetuate) of all of Idaho’s wildlife, but provides clear direction to manage wildlife for “continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping”. The Mission was further reinforced by the overwhelming support (75% of voters) for the 2012 constitutional amendment that preserves the public’s right to hunt, fish and trap and states this is the preferred method of managing Idaho’s wildlife populations via regulated hunting, fishing and trapping.

In this day and age of polarization on many issues with narrow margins, the overwhelming support for hunting, fishing and trapping gives the conservation and management message of the Idaho Fish and Game mission strong contemporary support. This continues to help us as an agency in meeting the vast majority of our public’s expectations. We are a public trust management agency providing benefits to Idahoans with a specific direction to preserve, protect and perpetuate (i.e. conserve) and once that is done, our paramount role is to provide for continued supplies for hunting, fishing, and trapping; harvest of wildlife is implicit in the Mission statement.

Idaho Fish and Game, both the agency and Commission, continues to garner one of the highest levels of positive public opinion relative to other entities dealing with the conservation of Idaho’s natural resources, well over 70% in a 2013 poll. I believe this is due to the work all of us have done, and collectively do, for the beneficiaries of that public trust – Idaho citizens. Our current economic model of funding based predominantly on hunter and angler user fees for Fish and Game’s management activities has long been a key and successful aspect of the North American Model of Wildlife Management in Idaho – the most successful approach to wildlife conservation ever taken on a large scale in the world.

So, coming from this perspective, quite frankly I was troubled by a number of outcomes from Confluence Café exercise focused on these issues. The café was intended to provide a venue for folks to give input to our agency leadership about the important conservation and management work we do for Idahoans as the managers of this public trust. By and large I believe we missed that mark by failing to consider our role is as the manager of Idaho’s wildlife public trust. Clearly we are in business and our “business” is the effective conservation (preserve, protect, perpetuate) and stewardship (management) of Idaho’s wildlife, providing benefits for hunting, fishing, and trapping that come with healthy and secure wildlife populations.

The Commission (via Governor appointment) and the legislature are the trustees of the public’s wildlife. The Commission’s role is to provide the public, as the trust beneficiaries, with sustainable use of that trust. As fish and wildlife (trust) managers, we have to be responsible to our legal role to advise the trustees, ascertain what constitutes sustainability, and determine to the best of our ability what kind of trust output the public (beneficiaries) desires (see ISTS Public Trust Doctrine presentation http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/internal/email/contact/confluence/IDaho_ISTS_PTD.pptx). While we all care deeply about the agency and have invested some or most of our professional lives to it, it does not make it ours. It’s the people’s agency. In my view, our highest priority role is to effectively communicate with both beneficiaries and trustees on what constitutes stewardship, and to do so with a strong scientific foundation. Once the Commission or legislature makes a decision, our role is to implement it effectively. We have an exceptionally talented and highly trained work force, and that is what we are hired to do.

To sum this up, the Department’s primary role and responsibility is to manage wildlife for people. We all know our mission is broad, and it includes all wildlife – but managing fish and wildlife for people is what we are charged to do and we need to make sure that continues to be done, and done well. As an agency, we have been exceptionally successful under the guidance of our Mission statement that all wildlife of Idaho “…shall be preserved, protected and perpetuated and managed”. Indeed, Idaho’s wildlife resources are world class, both in terms of diversity and representation of species, and in terms of the opportunities and experiences it affords Idahoans and our guests. That’s testimony to the work you do, and the work of our predecessors, adapting to changing times and societal demands as we implement the North American Model of Wildlife Management. Our success is a large part of what makes Idaho such a special place to hunt, fish and generally enjoy wildlife. A success predominately supported by the people who are hunters and anglers and carried out by you, as Fish and Game staff, who are the best and most dedicated professionals anywhere.

For my 37 years with Idaho Fish and Game, our Mission statement has been the single most important guide to me in all aspects of my activities as a fishery and wildlife management professional. It is the rock I come back to relative to who we are and what we do for the public we serve, and I refer to it regularly. Please take a few minutes to do the same, and use it to guide your daily activities as we strive to make Idaho a better place for fish and wildlife, hunters and anglers, and all of the citizens who benefit from this incredible resource.

Virgil Moore, Director

(NOTE: Director Moore enclosed a copy of the 1938 mission statement declared to be Idaho Wildlife Policy as I.C. Sec. 36-103. That mission statement is strongly reinforced in its last sentence which states, “The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.”

My wife and I wish to express our heartfelt thanks to the Idaho Fish and Game Commissioners and to all who have made this first important step possible. We still need and sincerely appreciate your donations to help support the vital information we provide and distribute. – ED)

Who’s Copying Who?

Guest post by James Beers:

A recent “scientific paper” from Finland:

Strong community support for illegal killing challenges wolf management

Abstract

In Finland, the conservation of large mammalian carnivores—brown bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine—is undermined by illegal killings that have commonly taken place after the implementation of national carnivore management plans. This hidden form of criminality cannot occur to such an extent without strong support from the local community. We examined the support of proximate groups by collecting data from hunters and women. In collecting data, we used non-active role playing with empathy-based fictitious stories. We used argumentation analysis to reveal the assumed species, the background of the illegal killing and especially the justifications and importance of community support for illegal killing. The results show that we have a conflict with strong basic emotions in hand as both illegal killing and support for illegal killing and hunting violators are based on anger and fear for children and domestic animals as well as frustration toward the authorities and the lack of proper management actions. The wolf is at the centre of the conflict due to the specific character of the species. Current policies have inevitably been lacking in terms of place-based policy, and that has led to conflicts between game management authorities/researchers and ordinary citizens. To facilitate a change in attitudes, we suggest focusing on affective factors via confidence-building measures.(emphasis added)

When Nixon was making his “Opening” to China he had the Smithsonian send over to our new found chums a cultural exchange. Good bureaucrats that they were, the “Smithsonians” recommended a display of Native American items to encourage solidarity between the Chinese (people) and the North American Native people. I am reminded of the reported reaction of Chinese visitors to that display as I read the above “report” from Finland. It seems the Chinese man-on-the-street was greatly amused by the American artifacts that only showed them what thieving rascals Americans were. You see, they were convinced that the capitalist/imperialist scum had clearly stolen the artifacts from Manchuria and Mongolia and shamelessly claimed them to be American artifacts.

Could the above article from Finland have been copied from Minnesota or Montana or Idaho or Oregon or Washington or North Carolina or Arizona or New Mexico or Michigan government “scientist/bureaucrat/undercover agents” presenting themselves as good-old-boy rural bumpkins to seduce the backward rustics and publish this paper?

All of those states have the same problem and slick, urban dandies want “government” to stop it. One must assume these bureaucrat know-it-alls have exhausted all other possibilities like hiring local spies or offering immunity or some other charge or recording bar room conversations or satellite photography or drones to identify the perpetrators of what the far-off elites see as crime and the local residents see as public service. Thus we see a glint of what lies ahead where I have underlined the ominous last sentence where the “ordinary citizen” (i.e. the local provincials) will be the target of “a change in attitudes, we suggest focusing on affective factors via confidence-building measures.”

Whatever that means, it is not good. If your attitude is not full supportive of government policy, it is off to a re-education camp in Hanoi or Phnom Penh. You see, current rural Europeans under the EU authorities are exactly like rural Americans under Washington DC authorities. If there is NO concern for them, their families, their communities, and their traditions and economies when wolves were made into weapons of the hidden agendas of powerful urban elites to be used at will on rural targets; can you be anything but deeply concerned about what these same folks will not shirk from doing when identifying and punishing those that think they have any Right to frustrate what these increasingly powerful overlords and their enforcers have wrought?

The parallels between rural Europeans and rural Americans grow closer every day. We should each keep an eye on each other because you can bet your bippy that the European, American & UN bureaucrats, “biologists”, enforcers and radical supporters are meeting and burning up the phone (do they still use “lines” anymore?) as they plot, scheme and “partner” about how to ratchet up the game and teach the rest of us a “lesson.”

If government decrees “brown bear, lynx, wolf and wolverine”; no matter the kids, dogs, sheep, cattle, families and economies affected. As old Sherlock Holmes once said and Shakespeare wrote in Henry V, “the game is afoot!”

Jim Beers
3 August 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

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

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Nature Balancing Itself and Animal Rights Hypocrisy

An article that appears on the NBC12.com website, gives readers a glimpse into what most people believe to be “balance of nature” and proof they have no idea what their so-called “balance” looks like. In addition, the same article reveals the hypocrisy that drives animal rights and animal protection groups (actually anti hunting, control freaks).

What is being shown is an emaciated young black bear. The article states that this particular bear should have weighed about 100 pounds coming out of hibernation. Instead it tipped the scales at 15 pounds. The reason for the starvation was given as being the result of a lack of natural food last fall leading up to the time of hibernation when bears work hard at gorging themselves to build fat reserves.

This my friends is an example of “(un)balance of nature.” Most who believe this myth have been convinced or have convinced themselves that if man just dried up and went away, nature would always self-regulate and be in some kind of Disneyesque, fake balance that does not exist.

One has to ask which is more cruel/inhumane? To see young bears being starved to death “naturally,” or through population manipulation, employing hunting and trapping, to keep bear numbers at sustainable levels so that when those seasons come around when there is little natural food, this extreme kind of starvation is better avoided.

It won’t stop all situations but it could mitigate a very serious issue.

On the hypocrisy side of things, in the article we read, “It’s important not to feed bears if they come searching for food in your lawn. Call animal control, so the bears can be taken to a haven where they’re revived, and then released.”

The animal protectors, most of whom dislike hunters, say that using bait for hunting bears is cruel, unnatural and causes bear populations to grow too high for the carrying capacity of the forests. They also say feeding bears by baiting/feeding habituates them to humans and creates the nuisance problems we see on a regular basis.

Here we see hypocrisy at its finest. First we see that while many people claim “balance of nature” and that man should get out of the wildlife management business, we have man butting into wildlife management, creating a wildlife management business of their own, reviving starving bears (starving due to balance of nature?) and then sending them back into the forests again to starve and/or cause the starvation of other bears.

While the animal protectors claim that feeding/baiting bears teaches bears that humans are a food resource, it is somehow overlooked that “reviving” a starved bear cub and sending it back to the woods has not taught that bear to be dependent on humans for food?

In addition, the act of reviving a starved bear may, in fact, cause the starvation of another bear. The reason these dozen bears that have been found are starving is because of a “natural” phenomenon known as too many bears and not enough food. Sending a revived bear back to compete with other starving bears makes no sense at all.

They kinds of ignorant and hypocritical people love balance of nature, that is the kind they conjure up in their heads, when it nicely fits their narrative. And holding true to their totalitarian ways, rules they have insisted on having about feeding/baiting bears, apply to only those they dislike (hunters).

When I Hear That Lonesome Whistle……..Damn the Train!

“The GPS collaring project is part of the overall $1 million, five-year Parks Canada-Canadian Pacific Railway joint action plan to try to prevent ongoing deaths of grizzly bears on the train tracks through Banff and Yoho national parks.Trains are the single biggest killer of grizzly bears in Banff National Park. There have been 14 known grizzly bear deaths on the railway in Banff and Yoho since 2000, but that number does not take into account bears that may be struck but never found.”<<<Read More>>>

With Manly Men Degradation, So Goes Hunting, Trapping, Fishing

People could spend a great deal of time discussing whether or not the feminizing of men in this country, and probably worldwide, is a deliberate scheme planned by “the rulers of the darkness of this world.” The reality, however, is a disturbing trend for those of us who desire to fight against those “progressing” to a new world order of unisexism, i.e. adding a bit of manliness to the female species with major modifications to the manly man into a big fat wuss!

For many, hunting, fishing, trapping, survival in the woods and enduring the elements, is a manly occupation and recreational interest, in addition to the implementation of resources to provide healthy food for the family. Ah, yes, manly endeavors! The “rulers of the darkness of this world” see such a lifestyle as a threat to them and their perverse world and therefore must work to change it.

With this changing, the task of putting an end to such things as hunting, trapping, fishing, access to land, etc. becomes easier; therefore adding to the substantiation of the idea that the wussification of man is a planned event.

If you might recall, back in December I posted a video of an advertisement the Obama administration either used or was considering using to promote their fascist Obamacare. By today’s standards, many would think of the sick and perverse ad as being beefcake and manly, but it is quite the opposite. The point being that the target audience, in which the media willingly beats the drum, is the young people, as it is their money that is needed to fund Obamacare. The audience is, by and large, effeminate, and thus the need for such a commercial.

Along the same lines, Pajama Boy, has become the poster child for Obamacare and an example of the kind of “man” this new generation of entitlement mentality has created.

Richard “Wretchard” Fernandez says of Pajama Boy:

It is now unfashionable to be the old manly man. When the Obama administration launched a campaign to attract enrollees into Obamacare, did they they front up a two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping he-man? Hell no. They employed “Pajama Boy” to lure the mice into the trap. This is who they reckoned the rising generation would admire. The heck with aspiring to be a test pilot or an astronaut. What people want today is the “funemployment” guy; the thing who drinks hot chocolate in his parents’ basement preparatory to selling them on subsidized, crap insurance. Pajama Boy is the new beau ideal. Why would the PR men have used his visage to grace their ads if women preferred “manly men”?

You can make the half-serious argument that in order to be a winner in today’s world it pays to be a loser. After all, you get subsidies. You get sympathy. You can play the victim card. Above all, you get the girl.

Isn’t everything, at least that is real, about hunting, fishing, trapping, of the “two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping, he-man?” If then, the men (I use the term very loosely) are becoming sissified, aren’t they then having everything manly bred, manipulated and indoctrinated out their existence?

With the constant barrage of animal rights, natural regulation, the hands-off approach to wildlife management and the lie that hunting, trapping and fishing are “inhumane”, then it would stand to reason that those activists wanting to rid the world of manly men, including the barbarism (in their eyes) of hunting, fishing and trapping, will target the Pajama Boy population of feminized boys.

In 2004, Maine fought against the less mature onset of this feminism movement to ban bear hunting and squeaked out a victory. Will they be able to this time? I can say that the effort will be harder to ward off. I’m not predicting the outcome.

Fernandez says:

But the insight of mutual degradation may provide the right clue. We probably seek people in proportion to our own aspirations. Our romantic goals are formed from our inner state. If we develop a taste for basements, then we look for stuff there. Civilization has lost its taste for manly men, not because those vanished figures are any less admirable but because steadfastness, courage and the need to be true have gone out of style.

It will be November before we find out what’s in the basements of Maine houses.

PajamaBoy

Want to Count Bobcats?

New Hampshire is looking for volunteers with trail/game cameras to help count bobcats. What amazes me is that money is spent in large quantities to count bats, turtles, piping plovers, butterflies and loons. Not one red cent is spent in Maine and other states to count game animals that bring in millions and millions of dollars to each of those states.

What is additionally disgusting is that when it comes to counting bats, turtles, butterflies and loons and now bobcats, volunteers are wanted. But when the real conservationists, i.e. the hunters, tell the wildlife authorities about the number of game animals in existence, the general response from those officials is that they don’t want to hear such talk from non experts.

Would somebody mind telling me why the double standard? I have donated hundreds, I’m sure thousands by now, dollars in order that I can have a chance to harvest game, and that money is often being spent to count butterflies, etc. In the meantime, guessing how many deer there are seems to be good enough….even though in states like Maine, the herd condition is dismal and the state appears to be mounting a program to convince people the herd has recovered.

Thank God for global warming.

Why Social Influence Should Never Effect Wildlife Management

horsepoop290It’s like the movie Ground Hogs Day. It’s repeated over and over. Every fish and wildlife agency in this country now adjusts their wildlife management plans according to the pressures and influences of the mindless, incapable of thinking beyond television, public: That is those more willing to care for animals than humans.

So why shouldn’t wildlife be managed due to public influences? Perhaps this bit of wisdom will help explain. In a Letter to the Editor in the Portland Press Herald out of Maine(scroll to find), a writer attempts to paint a picture of those proponents of bear hunting and trapping as somehow not understanding their own positions.

At issue here is that anti rights, anti hunting, anti trapping, anti (you fill in the blank), out-of-state, totalitarian fascists want to control what the citizens of the State of Maine do. They are attempting, once again, to end bear hunting and trapping. One of the arguments being used by, not only hunters, trappers and citizens at large who do understand the necessity of science-based wildlife management, but also by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is that ending any means to be able to control the population of black bears in Maine, will result in a public safety issue of too many human/bear conflicts.

Should the writer have had enough brain matter(I use the term loosely. Please see fable below), he would have been able to see the ignorance of his own statement when he said:

They say that too many conflicts with humans make these practices[bear hunting/trapping] essential to controlling the bear population.

But they also claim that that they need to use these techniques because bears are too difficult to find and shoot otherwise.

Which is it – too many bears or too few?

If you don’t know anything about hunting bears, then my recommendation would be to continue reading here the fable of the bird who refused to fly south for the winter.

A bird found a wonderful place to build a nest; right behind the wind-protected and warm chimney on top of a house. There were bird feeders around and such and so the bird decided not to fly south with the rest of the birds as winter approached.

The bird didn’t realize that when the leaves fell, the people that provided the bird feeders and warmed the chimney, closed up their house and went south as well.

The bird got cold and could find no food to eat.

One day, as the bird sat in his nest believing his life was going to end, he heard and saw a neighbor come by the house riding on a horse. He was there to check on the house for his neighbors. As the man looked around, the horse deposited a big pile of excrement right near the side of the house.

After the man and horse left, the bird crawled out of his nest and worked his way down to the eave of the roof; unable to fly he was so weak from starvation. Struggling, the bird eventually fell off the eave of the house and landed in the pile of horse excrement.

The excrement had warmth and nutrition. Soon the bird recovered his strength and flew back up to his nest. Still ignorant of the ways of the world when winter sets in, the bird was so happy he was going to live for another day, he began to sing and sing loudly. Soon a hawk heard the bird, swooped down and ate the bird.

The moral of the story is: When you are full of shit, keep your mouth shut.

And I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating The intelligence of the American public.”

*Note* – There may be some of you who will require additional help in understanding what has been written here. Seeking understanding from me is no longer free. My consultation fees begin at $100. I can take PayPal.

Idealism: Keep Politicians Out of Wildlife Policy Decisions

politicssuckNot only is it idealism, it’s fools play to actually think that anyone can keep politicians out of wildlife policy decisions. This is not going to happen and never has. It’s also one of the reasons politics AND environmentalism are so deeply rooted into wildlife policy decisions. It may be a problem that there exists too many outdoor enthusiasts who think just as Craig Dougherty, at Outdoor Life, in an opinion piece, when he expresses that:

I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the last person I want making wildlife policy is a politician. This is especially true when it comes to making major decisions on how wildlife and the future of hunting should be managed.

Well, dang! Get in line Bubba! There’s nothing I would like any more than to tell politicians to get to hell out of wildlife management and my life as a whole. As a matter of fact, those readers who know my work understand that I would like to see politicians just get to hell out…..period!

But this is idealistic poppycock. It is also one of many reasons I began writing back over a decade ago about hunting, fishing, trapping, the outdoors in general and how politics and politicians were screwing it all up. Sticking one’s head in the sand stating they are not going to contact their representative because they don’t want them involved in wildlife politics will accomplish nothing. For those who vote, try voting for somebody who believes as you do.

I despise politics in wildlife management! I’m partial to the North American Wildlife Management Model and managing game animals for surplus harvest. When politics control wildlife policy decisions, these two policies get flushed down the toilet. And we, as the real conservationists, the outdoor sportsman, are supposed to bang our heads on the floor and refuse to play anymore?

I think someone needs a time out.

But this opinion writer is not alone and it’s a shame really. The other day I was visiting a message board that I check into from time to time to see what’s going on in the trapping world. What appeared to me to be a young person, posted a question about a particular species’ trapping season but qualified his/her question by first stating that he/she didn’t want anybody offering an answer that had anything to do with politics. Isn’t that like me telling you to go to Washington and find an honest person?

This, in and of itself, I found troubling but it got even worse. It took a while for the conversation to get rolling there but eventually this young person revealed that they planned to be a “fur bearer biologist” and that he/she didn’t like politics, etc. etc. Boy, is this person in for a rude awakening.

Money, greed and politics are all mightily engrained into our lifestyle in America. I contend that, for many, perhaps like Mr. Dougherty, it’s much easier to escape to the fields and streams and wish it would all go away. But it will not and if more and more people like Dougherty and this young, aspiring fur-bearer biologist, don’t recognize reality and/or are not willing to address it, what hope is there left that there will be anything left to hunt, fish, trap, etc.?

Dougherty says that he would support an “agency” person within fish and wildlife over a politician.

…when it comes to actually writing the regulations and setting deer policy, I’ll take the agency guy over a politician every time.

I understand the attempt at somehow separating writing wildlife policy from the politicians but for the most part isn’t the entire structure of a fish and game department political? Someone has to hire the biologists, the wardens, the commissioner, etc. Don’t be so naive to think that politics aren’t involved at the initial hiring. Some would argue that state regulations protect those hired so the next political hack that arrives at the door can’t fire them for political reasons. That doesn’t change the fact that politics played a role from the initial hiring and always will. All that has changed is the party in power.

Perhaps instead of choosing the role of running away, someone with this kind of frustration should become more involved. Get involved in finding ways to structure fish and game department guidelines to ensure that politicians and their filth and grime cannot and does not micro manage the department. But don’t forget that there will come a time when you will need the power of being able to run to your favorite politician and beg for help. It always happens. Don’t weave your own noose!