March 4, 2013
It seems some readers are agog today over an article discovered to have been published at Daily Kos, discussing supposed errors made in attempts to understand wolf and wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. At the center of this article is David Mech, father of the Wolf Wars; the man who identifies with wolf studies and the introduction or reintroduction, depending on one’s perspective, of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
It’s always vengeful bliss to say, “I told you so,” but it’s just as important to understand that Mech’s seeming admission that some things might not have been right, is really no victory for anyone accept David Mech and the environmental hijackers; those destroyers of people’s rights, property destruction and confiscation, and the subjection of citizens to reduced levels of public health and safety.
On examination of certain statements made by Mech, on the surface I can see him saying the things that I have been writing about for several years on the myths of balance of nature and self regulation of the ecosystems.
…..at the very least, scientists now disagree about whether wolf related behaviorally mediated trophic cascades in Yellowstone are really occurring………. At most, that well-publicized claim may not be correct at all.
…..ecologists (and particularly conservation biologists) do seem obsessed to the point of blindness with predator-induced trophic cascades.
Two decades later after observing wolves and moose and whitetail in Minnesota, Mech denounced the “balance of nature” writing in (National Wildlife 23(1):54-59) he said nature “far from always being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically”.
Consider, if you will, what Mech said and the comment made by the author of this piece.
In an interview Mech states that scientific conclusions may “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way,”. Because the meme of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone is so embedded in textbooks and popular media, it may never die, even if untrue.(Emboldening added)
It has taken how many decades of wolf study, combined with the numerous “scientific” papers written and distributed by Mech, perhaps walking around with a very large chip on his shoulder, swelling in his pride as being perceived as the wolf expert, approaching godliness in some people’s eyes, to decide to consult other scientists about wolves, or in general, balance of nature and trophic cascades?
It may appear that Mech has reached some scientific epiphany or maybe even remorse, complete with crocodile tears, so why should we be so thrilled at his comments about the dishonesty and corruption of money-starved, agenda-driven scientists who, “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way?”
I would have to agree with the author of the article who states that this meme, that is the false idea that has spread throughout the scientific community full of wolf loving, money hungry faux scientists, may never die, is, in fact, the outcome that Mech intended from the beginning.
It’s a bit easier to put up a front indicating wrongdoing when the damage has been done and you’ve achieved the goals intended. Are we then to forgive and forget? I think not. The actions of Mech and many others, those being the products of his own work, i.e. his following, his own “outright dishonesty” and what I believe to be him knowing his own bias, have caused such extreme damage, to not only the scientific community but the loss of other wildlife, the spread of disease and the destruction caused to humanity through his deceitful work to cause division and strife among the people. How does one measure that value and establish accountability? Should we just dismiss it because this man is sticking his big toe in contriteness?
The damage has been done and it probably never will get corrected. The lessons learned here will also not be all good. One would like to think that the scientific community would take a deep breath and reassess this evil approach toward political ends shrouded in spurious science, but unfortunately it will stand as a proving ground in how to make money while lying and cheating the American public, regardless of the potential of damage that can be done. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil.
The U.S. Government, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should never have given one man so much power and authority to carry out his work. To do wrong, the result of work going unchecked and unchallenged, some because Mech had the power to disregard information from others, for over 2 decades and THEN step forward indicating that things may have been wrong, isn’t something the American citizens should be so easily willing to accept. There is far more to Mech’s and other’s behavior over the years that goes a bit beyond “oops” and can rightly be described as a criminal enterprise.
As Christians we are taught to forgive, but that doesn’t mean we need forget. We must correct the wrong and seek rightful justice for the actions that go beyond scientific error. The American people will never get back into the scientific literature the truth about wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. It is my opinion that this “damage” was intentionally planned. It is also my opinion that as David Mech ages, he’s now, without much fear of punitive actions against him, willing to say what he may deem appropriate to save his own skin and play to the side of science and citizens who believed him wrong and corrupt from the beginning. We shouldn’t fall for it.
We should take his words and attach those words to the years of his work and then the task at hand for the activists is to begin a long and difficult task of reeducation. How do you counter the brainwashing being done by the most powerful?
November 30, 2012
The residents of Maine’s Mount Desert Island lament the familiar cries of many across this land – too many deer causing too much disease, causing too many accidents, eating too many plants and veggies, etc. And not only does Mount Desert Island face all the same problems of trying to figure out what to do about it, they also face having the majority of the land mass of the island taken up by a National Park.
According to an article by Bill Trotter in the Bangor Daily News, he is correct in passing on what Len Bobinchock, deputy superintendent of Acadia National Park said about people refusing to allow hunting on their land and yet complain about the deer issue.
because individual property owners can determine whether to allow hunting on their land (if there’s not a state-imposed ban), MDI residents should be asked not just if they support a hunt, but also if they would allow hunting on their property. If residents in each town say a hunt should be allowed, but if few people would allow hunters on their land, having a hunt might not be practical, he said.
However, Bobinchock is very wrong when he says that it would take an act of Congress (literally) to get a hunt for Arcadia National Park.
Stu Marckoon, a town official of many titles in Lamoine, asked Bobinchock what it would take to get the federal government to allow a hunt in the park, but was told such a scenario is not likely.
“Congress,” the deputy superintendent said. “You’d have to introduce special legislation.”
We’ve been down this road a hundred times before but I’ll write it again. There is no mythical ban against hunting in a national park and special legislation is not required. Hunts have taken place in other national parks across the country and hunts are being discussed as well currently. Rocky Mountain National Park comes to mind as it is believed there are too many elk and anything from reintroducing wolves, to closing the park for a general elk hunt, to paying sharpshooters to kill elk have been discussed.
Having a hunt or deciding what to do about too many deer on MDI is up to the park superintendent. If the superintendent wanted to have a hunt, whether by closing the park or hiring sharpshooters, he or she has that authority. It’s just the same old rhetoric coming from the same people who just are opposed to wildlife management that involves population controls.
It’s always good to push opportunities for hunters but often times the problem of too many deer presents serious public health and safety issues. I advise the towns of Mount Desert Island, along with the superintendent of the national park, to get the facts FIRST, and then decide collectively what needs to be done.
November 16, 2012
What transpired recently in Idaho is a prime example of the product of “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” Idaho, like many other states, cannot find funding enough to carry out their non fish and game, environmentalist-dictated programs. In a ruse to find “alternative” means of funding, the Department of Fish and Game cobbled together a symposium, of sorts, structured entirely from the knowledge gained from outcome based education. In other words, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) knew what they wanted to achieve from such a gathering and thus designed the meetings to achieve the desired outcome.
The brainwashed leaders believed and/or convinced themselves, while at the same time mounting a propaganda campaign to additionally alter public opinion, that filling the room with operatives trained in new-science science and new-education education, was a fair representation of stakeholders and the only thing they had been taught to do. (Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.)
A small group of not so easily influenced holdouts, who have enough of an understanding to see that this sort of thing is not right, did their best to stop the symposium or change it to something resembling sanity. The result was that the majority, which is a reflection of American Society, are victims of the sinister brainwashing that exists in our schools and throughout every aspect of our society. I believe those putting on the meetings, and the majority of those in attendance, actually believe they are doing the right thing.
The key here is to gain an understanding that this “changing” or mindset alterations is not some natural phenomenon. It is not merely explained away as a “progressive” lifestyle. It may appear that way but is this progression a voluntary one? It’s an orchestrated effort as we shall learn. Readers must open their eyes to this fact.
Who is responsible for the brainwashing? I choose to call it brainwashing because that’s really what it is. When anyone or any organization sets out to change the rational way of thinking in a mass of people, that’s brainwashing. When I write that those responsible for this action believe that, “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America”, the only way this can be done is through mind manipulation; to devise a way in which to completely alter the way that people think; to convince those masses that what was white is now black, that what was right is now wrong. This is brainwashing.
As I said, this program did not start yesterday. It has been implemented to varying degrees for a very long time and what some of us are seeing in our society is a product of that work.
In Part III, I shared a tiny bit of how the United Nations has implemented programs in education that have an influence on our everyday lives. What I didn’t write much about is who is responsible for the programs and what’s behind those plans to brainwash our people.
This conversion of thought, or the destruction of all thought, comes from seemingly countless entities but all with a common factor. To grow such a large sphere of influence is a monumental task that must begin with finding the right leaders of nations around the world and “training” them to take their new-found knowledge back to their homes and businesses with them to share with others and to train new “change agents”. In time, there becomes hundreds, then thousands and tens of thousands of change agents all freshly brainwashed carrying out the mission of the “enlightened” elites of the world “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”
One of those training facilitators is known as the National Training Laboratories (NTL). I have personal knowledge and experience with this organization because NTL was founded in my hometown of Bethel, Maine. As a high school student I worked for this company and later as an adult actually attended some of their seminars and “T-Groups” (training groups), as well as visited the homes of some of the founders.
Bethel, Maine is a micro New England village where the population in the village proper is approximately 1,100 people. In a town that tiny, it’s difficult to not know what is going on; the same could be said for the activities of NTL.
Founded in Bethel, Maine in 1947 by Dr. Kurt Lewin, main offices were eventually set up in Washington, D.C. and during the summers, “training” took place at the NTL Center, as well as the facilities of Gould Academy and the Bethel Inn; all located in Bethel, Maine. In addition to Lewin, Ron Lippett, Lee Bradford and others helped found NTL and after Lewin’s early death, it was mostly Lippett and Bradford that continued on with NTL.
Lewin was a freak show really; a German native trained in psychology and kicked out of his native country because of the controversial work he did. In short, he discovered that through his work he believed he could make mentally ill people well. While that is a readily acceptable practice all across America, Lewin carried it to an antithetical extreme. He believed he could make mentally well people ill. His findings became the basis for sinister plans to extract information from people and brainwash masses to achieve desired public opinion. This was used initially for military tactics but later was found to be helpful in influencing the people, anywhere and in any numbers.
With Lewin’s evil notions grounding the foundation of NTL, he, Ron Lippett (an OSS, now CIA, operative) and Bradford set out “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”
In the tiny town of Bethel, Maine, corporate and educational leaders from all over the world came for their special “training”. I was most exposed to some of their tactics when I worked as an audio/visual technician. In that capacity, I would have to make sure each classroom was set up with the desired tools, i.e. easels, markers, paper, tape recorders and sometimes movie cameras and projectors. There were times when I was requested to remain in the room and run tape recorders, movie projectors and cameras. Things that I saw at age 16, I knew somehow were really wrong at all levels but at 16 I had no idea exactly as to why. In addition, I was clueless as to what was actually going on and why and to what degree this “training” was and did have that greatly influenced this nation and the destruction of our society.
The use of mind-altering drugs, human mental abuse and sex where quite common, especially in what NTL called their “sensitivity training” sessions. It was often described as a means of “emotionally tearing somebody down in order to build them back up.” And build them back up as what, I might ask?
The National Training Laboratories‘ website gives us a mission statement and a list of values. I would like, for the purposes of the context of this multi-part series to point out one specific bulleted “value”. “Creation and dissemination of new knowledge and practice.” It amazes me that anyone can believe they can “create” new knowledge and “create” practice of that knowledge. This again, should give readers a better understanding of “new-science scientists” and where they get their garbage faux “knowledge” that they bring with them into the field.
NTL has worked hand in hand for years with the National Education Association (NEA), which is the largest teachers union today. In addition, Lippett and Bradford founded and ran the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), where one of its objectives was the promotion of illicit drugs into our culture. SPRU trained what today are known as “New-Science Scientists”. The purpose of their training was to implement “Future Shocks”, a tactic where crises are created for the purpose of “shocking” the masses into submission. What easier way to control and train the masses than through fear. We see it everyday…..well, at least those who can see.
Try to imagine how many new NTL trainees have infiltrated our society in the past 65 years. Scary isn’t it and again, NTL is only one small part of the big picture in the planned decline of the United States. I contend that probably by now every university and perhaps every school district in this country, along with local, state and federal governments have NTL, United Nations and other operatives working diligently to complete the change. Hundreds of thousands of “change agents” and we wonder what has happened to our wildlife biologists. Maybe it’s time to look around and ask what has happened to our lives, our heritage and our culture.
Part V will look at what one agency here in America is probably responsible for making sure our schools, television, entertainment, music, politics, etc. are carrying out their brainwashing schemes.
November 15, 2012
Wildlife biologists as a whole are not evil people, nor are those who have educated them, our children and all of us from day one. Most are products of the same environment as you and I. I can’t speak directly for you, but I’m not an evil person; although I’m sure there are those who would disagree. As those famous words say, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” The transformation did not happen over night. It has taken no fewer than 100 years to bring the United States to the brink of disaster; a catastrophe as it relates to our social identity and mind set. This change is sure to lead to a complete metamorphosis of such degree that history will not be able to recognize what we have become.
In Part I, I expressed thanks for the few people left in this world who think on their own. Why, I cannot fully explain but nonetheless this chosen band of perceived renegades have done perhaps more for us than any of us know or will ever know.
There exists a YouTube video called, “Slavery and the Eight Veils (truth as you have never imagined)“. For the life of me I cannot understand why the makers of this video chose to choreograph it as some kind of weird revelation, with eerie and bizarre music, etc. The content of the video is compelling and should incite some sort of thoughts in those who view it, even if the information contained therein is not completely factual or can be substantiated. It is thought provoking. The significance of the video is to show that the overwhelming majority of people in this world remain blindly and robotically snuggled within the first veil of slavery, many of which fear truth beyond that veil as they have been programmed to do. Watch the video and then ask yourself where you are and just as importantly, why.
Who and what are the forces that have taken such a grip on our lives that we can no longer think for ourselves and are eager to extol the weltanschauung (articles of faith, canon, catechism, church, confession, conviction, cult, doctrine, dogma, faith, ideology, persuasion, profession, religion, tenet), even when this exalting and glorification of nonsensical doctrine is contrary to common sense and even defies sanity? It is certainly NOT my father’s way of thinking. And with this comes the emboldening of individuals who force their weltanschauung on others when what made America great was the freedom, liberty, rights and the pursuit of life and happiness without interference from others.
The network of forces at work is vast and I can never cover them all. My intention here is to begin with a few organizations and attempt to convince you that there is more to this sinister event than what you are allowed to see. All of these organizations are linked together for one grand purpose; to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.
The overwhelming majority of us probably have never heard of but a fraction of the non governmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks, research institutes, non profits etc. that bind and restrict the freedoms of our lives. Oftentimes we hear names of such groups and pay little or no attention to them. It’s time that we all stop doing that. Every time you hear another name of an entity involved in any aspect of your life, no matter how insignificant it may appear, do a bit more research of your own and find out what this group is up to and more importantly, who sponsors it; that is if you any longer care enough.
Let’s first begin with an entity that probably most of you have heard about but may not have knowledge as to exactly what they do, how far their reach is and what is their objective. The United Nations(UN) could entail an entire book but I intend to narrow the focus to education and how their influence is destroying, deliberately, our outdoor heritage.
The effort to “shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America” began before the United Nations (once the League of Nations) was created on August 8, 1945. On that day, the US was the first nation to sign the charter and become a member. This act, in and of itself, is often debated as to whether or not it is constitutional. I’ll leave that decision up to you. I will however point out the many, many treaties the US has signed with the UN and direct you to the fact that they are, in fact, illegal and unconstitutional.
In 1829, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Marshall, wrote: “A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.” (Emboldening added)
In 1884, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Miller, wrote in reference to the Head Money Cases: “A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations.”(emboldening added)
When we examine the several treaties the United States has with the United Nations, we see that all of them are illegal and unconstitutional and yet we continue to abide by said treaties while indulging in more. When outdoor sportsmen consider only the treaties signed within the Endangered Species Act, we should be outraged. And presently, President Obama is intending to find a way to turn the sovereign rights of the people of the United States to own firearms over to a non sovereign entity, a club of good ole boys who control all the purse strings and wield the power of a tyrannical despot. Ask yourself how much these treaties have an influence in your life and that of your children, while considering if the fact that Americans own guns by the millions is the last hold out obstacle before the U.S. becomes part of the planned New World Order run by a One World Government head by a dictator.
Turning more directly to education, the entire compass becomes vast, shady and totalitarian, designed to mislead and redirect. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is perhaps the giant, horned administrator of all things educational, scientific and cultural under the auspices of the United Nations. Consider the mission statement:
The mission of the UNESCO Education Sector is to:
*provide international leadership to create learning societies with educational opportunities for all populations.
*provide expertise and foster partnerships to strengthen national educational leadership and the capacity of countries to offer quality education for all.
*work as an intellectual leader, an honest broker and clearing house for ideas, propelling both countries and the international community to accelerate progress towards these goals.
*facilitate the development of partnerships and monitors progress, in particular by publishing an annual Global Monitoring Report that tracks the achievements of countries and the international community towards the six Education for All goals.
What does this tell us? Absolutely nothing really and by design! It all sounds good but tell me who decides what is “quality education”? What is a “learning society”? Number three intimates that UNESCO will decide what you and your child shall learn and you have no say over it. Is that any good?
UNESCO partners with the following (you need to take the time to study and find out about these agencies. After all, they are part of our destruction.):
1.)United Nations Development Program
4.)International Labor Organization (for teachers)
5.)World Food Program
6.)Delivering as One
7.)United Nations Population Fund
8.)List of Nations and their organizations that donate money
10.)Private Donors (In consideration of a joint initiative with the World Economic Forum, consider these partners.)
Some readers will make comment that all of these programs are good. After all, how can anybody deny that feeding children is a bad thing. It’s not. It’s what the children become subjected to that is wrong and that seemingly nobody cares about, providing they get a free meal. And that too is by design. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book on how to brainwash and proselytize. Lure somebody into your power structure by offering something for free and then let them have it with your ideologue and mind manipulations.
Another of UNESCO’s partners is the Global Partnership for Education. GPE’s stated mission is: “To galvanize and coordinate a global effort to deliver a good quality education to all girls and boys, prioritizing the poorest and most vulnerable.”(emboldening added)
Something to consider in this is that it is the mission of GPE to “galvanize and coordinate a global effort”. Does that mean an effort to reach all over the world or does that mean to educate children all over the world into a global mentality; a brain dead, robotic, mind changing and easily manipulated child who will grow up and do the bidding for those pulling all the strings?
A giant of a “catch” word over the past several years is “sustainability”. How many of you have actually thought about and looked into just what that means? It certainly sounds good but it is not. Sustainability has become a center of focus in just about everything we do in our lives. There is sustainability in education, population, growth, you name it, it’s there. And somebody or something is deciding how many people should inhabit this earth, how much, if any, food you can grow, what you learn in school and what kind of food you can eat.
Sustainability plays a giant roll with environmentalists and animal rights groups to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing. Their brainwashed contention is that nature balances itself and that man should not be allowed to harvest game because it is NOT SUSTAINABLE and the people have a right to protect all wildlife.
Is this what you want? This is all done in the name of sustainability and that word comes to us courtesy of the tyrannical United Nations; a non sovereign boys club that has no country, no nation, no government, no army, nothing that identifies it as a sovereign country. But who gave the United Nations the word “sustainability”?
UNESCO is just one small part of the United Nations’ brainwashing organization and yet I’ve only begun to scratch the surface as to how deep the indoctrinating and proselytizing goes; not just in the UN but within the hundreds of organizations sanctioned to destroy you and me and all that was passed down to us from our forefathers.
All of these programs are by design and not just happenstance. As a reader you can choose to ignore any or all of this information and remain conveniently shrouded behind curtain number one, or you can follow along, doing your own research to discover why your local fish and game department has fallen in love with the likes of environmental groups while turning their backs on the sportsmen. This is one of those instances where I said, “even when this exalting and glorification of nonsensical doctrine is contrary to common sense and even defies sanity.” It makes no sense that what worked and worked well, is flushed down the toilet and replaced with nonsensical doctrine that defies rational thinking; unless your goal is to destroy it.
Due to constraints of time and space, I cannot begin to uncover for you the depth of despair the United Nations brings. Nothing about it is good. I’m sorry if that bunches your undies. If you think the majority of what the UN does is good, you are a victim. Time for a change.
In Part IV, I’ll begin looking at other brainwashing institutions such as, National Training Laboratories, Stanford Research Institute, Rand Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Second Nature, United States Department of Education, the list is a hundred miles long and they all have something in common. I’ll also show you how California is the model for what America is to become all brought to you by the same evil forces running the rest of the planet.
November 14, 2012
It is not my intention to foist all the blame for terrible, ridiculous, confusing, misleading and down right poor wildlife management on wildlife science graduates of our universities because that is only part of the picture. It is imperative to keep in mind the entire picture, for the work the new-science scientists are doing would not be working – meaning they are getting away with it – if you and I had not been “trained” to accept it; much like preparing a great Thanksgiving dinner and having no table or guests prepared to eat it.
This concept is probably confusing to most because they cannot see themselves as not holding truth. Most all Americans have knowledge of varying degrees but what is the root of that knowledge? Recently in a mild discussion I had with a friend, I posed the following thought in order to catch a reaction: “Suppose for a moment, if you will, that most everything you have been taught since the day you were born was a lie.”
I got mostly a blank stare and that came as no surprise. After all, who wants to discover they are living a lie? Just think about what that would mean and soon you find how terrifying such an epiphany would be and you want to quickly retreat to the familiar comforts of the environment that’s been created for you.
Let’s return to the list I mentioned in Part I. That was the list of all the things that you believe made America great. That list will vary by generations as the younger our American citizens are, the less they know of what did make America great. If you’ve made a list, whether real or in you mind, on that list you may have included a few things that I talked about in Part I.
I briefly touched on the following:
1.) Our inalienable, God-given rights
2.) The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
3.) A citizenry (sportsmen) who care enough to protect a resource
and to this list, as it pertains to hunting, trapping, fishing, etc., we can add:
4.) Outdoor heritage
5.) The increase in strength of the family unit for those in the outdoors together
6.) The freedom to access land for outdoor recreation
7.) Our access to game resources, i.e. management of wildlife to create a sustainable yield.
I am sure you can add to this list but let’s not miss the point. If these are some of the things that made America great, and I wanted to change and/or destroy that, I simply have to attack each one. If this American heritage and culture were deeply engrained into our society, one might expect it would be difficult to one day just say, “No more hunting, trapping and fishing!” That’s not how it’s done. It’s done one step at a time. A painstaking method of changing the thought processes of the people; all the people.
In looking at my list, I would need to teach people that our rights come from man, meaning governments and that there is no God; that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is only designed for evil men who like to kill things to prove their manhood; that the family unit is invaluable and the identity of that unit must be changed; that sportsmen are selfish, irrational killers of innocent animals; that times have changed and there is no need for a heritage grounded in the outdoors; that the family has better things to do, like go to movies, play computer games, cellphones, sex, drugs, etc.; that land belongs to the government and government decides who can access it and when.
Haven’t many of these things already taken place? And we wonder what is happening to our heritage? Unfortunately, because we are all products of the same education/indoctrination/brainwashing system, we fail to even ask why? Who? What? When? Where? How?
What things in this country have influence over you and your children? Again, along with your list of things that made America great, draft another list of the things in your life that have influence over you and your children/family and friends. It may look something like this:
9.) A mentor
Have you ever asked yourself who has control over each of these things? Is it you and I? Have you ever considered that perhaps someone or something has control over all of them and their plan is to change and/or destroy all of those things that made our nation great and along with it, the destruction of our heritage?
Many years ago, the world was very large. We and our children didn’t have access to instant information. Our children spent the majority of their time at home with family, having meals together, learning together, working together, playing together, etc. and the parents, having spent the most time with their kids, had the most influence over them. That no longer is the case. Schools, television, computer games, cellphones, music, etc. are the big influences. If you are willing to accept this premise, then if you care about your family, shouldn’t you know who controls what controls your kids and if there’s a plan behind it?
I do not intend to get into a parenting debate with readers but if we can’t get a grasp on this issue, we can never understand why our outdoor heritage, actually our heritage in general, is disappearing before our very eyes. We are losing our identity and this is because our children are having their identity created by someone else rather than mom and dad.
What if there was one entity with the power, money and influence to control nearly every aspect of our lives and we don’t even know it’s happening? Who decides on our children’s school curriculum and why? Are you aware of what your children are watching on television, who’s behind the programming and what they intend to accomplish by offering it to you and your family? The same can be asked about music, books, nearly every aspect of our lives. Why are we complacent and let it happen?
In Part III, I’ll begin to take a look at the actual people and entities that control our lives. It is that control that decides that our outdoor heritage will be destroyed and hopefully we can learn to recognize it and how it is being done. Then and only then, can we hope to stop it.
October 16, 2012
Once again, Outcome Based Education, political bias and perpetuated myths are on display in Maine. A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist and a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologist, says that politicians are the cause of Maine’s depleted(ing) deer herd, not coyotes.
Politicians are to blame for many things and readers know I would be the last in line to stand up for one unless I knew them personally and could trust them. As far as whether politicians are the sole blame for Maine’s vanishing deer herd, I don’t think, as much as I would like to, I could put all the blame on them.
The author was a wildlife biologist and worked for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), so I doubt he would dare place any of the blame for a terrible deer management execution on his “brotherhood” at MDIFW.
Getting beyond the political bias and nonsense, let’s examine a few things that the retired biologist had to say.
Since the early 1900s, expensive and barbaric coyote bounties have failed miserably in western states, but that knowledge carries no weight in Augusta.
History is full of accounts of how “barbaric bounties” very effectively controlled predator populations. Maybe the author needed to rewind his history clock a few more years to discover that….or maybe the seeming failure was intentional.
One has to simply reread many of the journals and accounts from years ago in the West to learn what actually happened. A favorite account of mine is that of C. Gordon Hewitt.
It always amazes me how that the evils of hunting swing in both directions, when convenient. While wolves and coyotes were virtually wiped out in the West as the settlers moved in, hunters were blamed. When there is talk of killing predators, such as coyotes and wolves, those same people who blamed the destruction of coyotes and wolves on hunters, swing the door in the other direction and tell us as did the opinion piece in question:
It seems counterintuitive, but the war on coyotes has actually increased their numbers and breeding range. The Colorado Division of Wildlife reports that coyotes are more numerous today than when the state was first settled by trappers. Colorado and other western states no longer waste taxpayer money on futile coyote control programs.
There exists no scientific evidence that killing coyotes causes them to automatically breed more of themselves. There are just too many factors that come into play when examining reproductive habits of any wild animal. And is the author of this opinion piece actually suggesting here that all those coyotes now in Colorado are solely to blame on hunters and trappers? Once again, a reading and studying of the history of settling the West shows that aside from certain pockets, this nirvana of the West was not so Disneyesque as many would like to believe. Man’s expansion created a vast habitat to support coyotes and all other wildlife. In time, the implementation of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation allowed for the growth and health of our wildlife systems.
The retired biologist intimates that Maine plans to implement a one year program to kill coyotes, saying it wouldn’t be effective. Agreed, and I know of no honest person who has indicated that it would. I happen to know explicitly that both MDIFW Commissioner Woodcock and Governor LePage have been told and I believe understand that predator control is an ongoing part of wildlife management and this should have been taking place years ago. The MDIFW fell flat on their faces in this regard.
The article shows us the author’s real colors when he begins his rant about how the Maine politicians failed because they did not steal land rights away from American taxpayers. The crying and gnashing of teeth is about the State Legislature failing to tell landowners they can’t use the resources on their own land; an unconstitutional land grab straight from the pages of the United Nations Agenda 21 program, whose goal it is to take all land and resources worldwide and forbid you and I from owning or having access to any of it, saving it instead for them. I’m all for protecting our wildlife, but never at the expense of man’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are better ways than forceful takeovers.
We are then treated to what appears to be an expert on the deer management in Minnesota and Michigan stating:
If you remain unconvinced that lack of winter shelter is the primary reason northern Maine supports few deer, please consider this: Minnesota and Michigan deer herds are much healthier than Maine’s. Minnesota and Michigan winters are as difficult as Maine’s. Deer in both of those states must also avoid being eaten by coyotes and wolves.
So the logical question LePage, Woodcock, Martin and deer hunters should ask is this: What are Minnesota and Michigan doing differently to maintain healthy deer populations? The answer: Both states prioritize protecting deer wintering areas through land purchases, conservation easements and regulating excessive timber harvests.
The proof is in the pudding they say, and with the help of a reader, we have been able to provide a couple of graphs that show that since the late 1990s and early 2000s, both Minnesota and Michigan have seriously reduced deer harvest numbers, dropping over 30% and more.
You don’t suppose that one of the reasons that Minnesota and Michigan have a declining harvest of deer, an indication of a declining deer population, has anything at all to do with the years of over protecting predators and now the results of that over protection are showing up? In addition, I have yet to get anyone that pretends to have all the answers explain to me why, if there are no more deer wintering areas left in Maine to support more deer, the ones we have are not being used?
It appears that the basis for the author’s opinion piece in the paper is mostly wrapped around his dislike of Gov. LePage and his republican administration, while at the same time blaming politicians in general for a deer demise, the fate of which was left in the hands of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a department that the biologist was an employee of. Surely we couldn’t expect someone to point a finger at their brotherhood of hoodwinked biologists….or even perhaps at themselves.
October 9, 2012
Below is a copy of a letter written by a man who has, over the recent years, become a very outspoken activist for the Idaho hunting, fishing and trapping community. Part of his focus is on weeding out the corruption that exists on the Board of Commissioners as well as within the fish and game department itself. And now, it appears that Mr. Rockholm has taken another step in his desire to weed out those who not only refuse to carry out the mission of the fish and game department, but work behind the scenes if necessary, against the mission of the fish and game department.
In this instance in Idaho, Rockholm fingered one man specifically, who, it was discovered, had gone on Facebook and advocated for pro wolf supporters to “shoot, shovel and shut up” private livestock legally being grazed on public lands. For those who may not know, “shoot, shovel and shut up” is a term that was used in describing the actions supposedly taken by some in dealing with federally protected gray wolves. The words speak for themselves.
Rhetoric is cheap and we all practice it to some degree. I have made comments in the past and I have read them and heard them from others, that our fish and game departments have been taken over by environmentalists and animal rights advocates, many of whom are supporters of predator protection and non consumptive wildlife management.
In this Idaho case, after the employee was offered early retirement because of his actions, he made it known on further Facebook postings that he no longer had to work quietly while on his job as a pro wolf, environmentalist activists and was ready to become openly active while at the same time fingering a fellow fish and game employee as being in the same predicament. Nice guy!
Even though Mr. Rockholm was told by the director of the fish and game department that the person in question was fired, he wasn’t. He was just offered an early retirement package. Which brings us to another point in the discussion about getting rid of fish and game employees who don’t work to fulfill the mission of the departments they work for. Easier said than done.
We mustn’t lose sight of the fact that these people are government employees and as such it makes it next to impossible to get rid of them, even if they are not doing their job – frustrating but true.
Many sportsmen advocate that fish and game work should be based on science and not on politics. While it should be, how do you suggest keeping politics out of it when more than likely the appointment to the head of the fish and game department is a political one?
As just another political department, it should be fish and game carries out the program guidelines set up between the governor and his selection to run the department. It then becomes the responsibility of the head of the fish and game, to bring his employees in line with the mission. If there are no alternatives for fish and game leaders to deal with non complying employees, then that is the fault of the state’s governmental structure and needs changing. And good luck with that.
This political crap runs in both directions through both parties and as such the employees need to be able to adapt accordingly. If they refuse to do their job or are found to be working against the mission of the department, proper disciplinary action should be allowed, not an easy out with early retirement.
There’s always been a difficult line as to what a government employee can and cannot do on their own time. I think it shouldn’t matter, so long as it is within the law. I’m not sure encouraging people in the destruction of other people’s lawful property isn’t taking things a bit too far.
No employee should be protected from being fired from their job for good reason.
And now, Scott Rockholm’s letter:
The demons within
September 2012 was an enlightening month for those of us who keep an eye on Idaho Fish No Game. On 19 Sept 2012, I received notice of a IDFNG Senior Fisheries Tech prowling the internet, professing that the wolf loving / anti ranching activist’s should start killing cattle on public land grazing allotments. See screen shot of Ric Davidson’s comment.
After I was notified of this outrageous comment, I immediately called Director Moore. I also called the Fisheries Chief, Ed Schriever, and we had a brief discussion of the important nature of a Idaho Fish No Game employee advocating shooting private ranchers cattle, lawfully grazing their property on permitted allotments. Mr. Shriever and Mr. Moore assured me that the issue would be handled in a professional manner. I was called later that afternoon by Mr. Moore, who advised me that Ric Davidson was fired, or as he put it, “Mr. Davidson , as of this very moment, not a IDFNG employee any longer”. I thanked Virgil, and the conversation ended. Problem solved, and one more anti hunting/ anti ranching employee of the department was vetted. I assumed the problem was handled, but it appears no punishment was delivered at all. He was given an option to retire, and now he will collect even more of sportsmen’s dollars through retirement. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Within days of Ric Davidson’s firing, he was already on the world wide web, proclaiming his “Retirement” from the Department. This hate filled man, who had been sucking off of hunters hard earned dollars, is now revealing himself even more. He is now working with, or maybe had been working with all along, the Friends of the Clearwater. This organization couldn’t get more radical, and is charged with the same hate filled rhetoric that Ric Davidson has. Below is a screen shot, where he implicates himself working with this organization, while working for the Idaho Fish No Game, and he also implicates his supervisor, Sean Wilson. Look for yourself.
What we have here is an example of corruption from within. Many of our department employees are agenda driven people who hide behind the IDFNG logo. They drive department vehicles, and collect very good wages for enjoying a great job, in one of the nations treasures. These employees must be vetted, and removed from the payroll for good. A forensic audit of the department is in order, and the only means by which we can weed out the anti department bad apples. I ask the Idaho Legislature to consider a thorough and extensive audit of the Idaho Fish No Game, and the audit must be a independent forensic review that spans many years. There is no reason to have employees working for a department, with the goal of destroying it from within.
Save Western Wildlife INC
September 21, 2012
On September 10, 2012, the Portland Press Herald released an opinion piece in which the author believed that spending money to control the population of coyotes for the benefit of all wildlife was “ill-conceived wildlife measures”. The author claims that spending $100,000, of which only $15,000 was actually spent, was an “irresponsible use of taxpayer funds”. Was it really?
Today, in the same newspaper, a person wrote a short comment in support of the first opinion piece:
Reduce the population of coyotes enough to make a temporary difference, and those remaining will produce more pups to fill the loss in numbers. If the governor had asked the state biologists, they would have told him this.
That is the entirety of the letter.
First of all, there is no scientific evidence that proves the absurd statement that if you kill some coyotes, “those remaining will produce more pups to fill the loss of numbers”. That’s a myth that has been perpetuated by protectors of predators, like the coyote, as a means to dishonestly deceive the public in order to drum up support for private and personal agendas.
There are few that will argue that attempting to control predators can be achieved with one season of killing. It’s an ongoing thing. If the desired number of coyotes can be achieved with a required amount of effort, the task of managing a stable population is much easier.
The second issue is that the author says that if the governor had asked the state biologists, they would have told him that the coyotes would reproduce more coyotes to fill the void. That statement is probably true because most of the biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and wildlife agencies all over the world, are predator protectors and have been indoctrinated to believe the same myth the author has. Therefore, the lie is perpetuated with very few people ever challenging the concept. What a travesty!
All of this is the product of non scientific brainwashing, convincing non thinking students that nature balances itself out. That if man was somehow taken out of the equation, some kind of nirvana would ensue and all would be well. Odd that they would perpetuate this myth being that if it were true, why would any state NEED a fish and wildlife department, wasting millions of dollars each year for something they seem to think would be handled just fine without them.
Dr. Valerius Geist, a foremost wildlife scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, calls the idea of this kind of wildlife management thought as “intellectual rubbish”. But why waste my time attempting to help people understand the truth when the truth doesn’t fit their narrative?
I challenge all readers to make an attempt at learning that there is no such thing as a self-regulated ecosystem; at least not in the Disneyesque sense of things. It may surprise you to know that there does not exist a system of ecology, i.e. ecosystem. That it’s not a system at all, leading people to believe it is some kind of well-oiled machinery. In reality nothing is ever static therefore there can be no balance.
Left to mother nature, reality would scare most people, with large swings of near extinction of some species, starvation and disease. That’s how mother nature does it.
But that didn’t stop the coiners of the term ecosystem, again to deceive the public and gain their support knowing people are just all too eager to believe what they are told and not think for themselves and discover the truth on their own.
If you are actually interested in truth and not someone’s “intellectual rubbish”, you can begin by reading an article I wrote a couple years ago about Dr. Valerius Geist’s comments on natural balance and self regulation. There you will find links to scientific articles and studies that will help you understand how everything is constantly changing. Wildlife does not become balanced and remain static by itself. It is in constant flux, influenced by a host of ever changing conditions and circumstances and often leaving the forests with what is known as a predator pit; void of any population of prey species and dominated by predators. Follow the links and continue your own research. It’s not easy but sometimes discovering facts is not. It’s fascinating stuff and the truth will set you free.
If you really are a believer in the conservation of all wild things, then do yourself a favor and first, stop reading and believing the garbage being put out by fish and wildlife agencies, media and environmentalists that are agenda-driven and dishonest. The conservation is about conserving ALL wildlife not protecting one species at the expense of others.
August 16, 2012
It appears to me that this blind, political ignorance that so blatantly reveals itself in Washington, is deeply imbedded into state governments as well.
According to George Smith, free lance writer and blogger, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MIDFW) is about to receive a one-million dollar windfall from excess Pittman-Robertson (PR) money, due to the increase in gun and ammunition sales since Barack Obama became president. The excise tax on guns, ammunition and other assorted sporting goods, gets doled out to each of the states according to land mass, how many licenses sold, etc.
Smith writes that Governor LePage doesn’t want to use that money for programs that will just cost the taxpayers of the state more money once the symptoms of the windfall go away.
Governor Paul LePage is determined not to take federal dollars if the end result – down the road – will be increased spending of state dollars. In other words, he doesn’t want this extra PR money to be spent on new staff, because if and when the federal funds go back to normal levels, the state would have to pay all those costs. That’s got DIF&W officials looking for one-time expenditures of the new PR funds.
LePage’s notions make sense. So, if the state is looking for “one-time expenditures”, what’s the first thing that comes into your head? There are restrictions on the PR money and what it can be spent on. But like all government appropriations and expenditures, that expenditure gets abused and isn’t used exactly as was intended. It’s supposed to be money for preservation of wildlife habitat or most anything directly related to promoting and enhancing huntable wildlife, etc.
What would you say if I told you that also according to Smith, MDIFW is looking to use at least some of that money on gun and rifle ranges. No, really! Don’t get me wrong. I think having some rifle ranges around are a good thing but honestly, how high on the priority list of things “critical” is dumping money into game club’s rifle ranges?
Smith says, “The Department may also spend some of the new PR funds on the acquisition of wildlife habitat.” Gosh, am I mistaken or wasn’t it just a short time ago that deer hunting was never going to recover unless the state did something about protecting habitat? This coming directly from MDIFW. And wasn’t it just awhile ago that the state was arguing over whether the Governor should appropriate some general fund money to pay for predator reduction? And wasn’t the concern over where the money would come from to continue the effort as all agreed it had to be ongoing to be effective? And what ever has become of Maine’s Plan for Deer? Wasn’t the lament that the plan might be good but where in hell was the money going to come from?
And now MDIFW thinks the need for improved rifle ranges is more important than what has come before?
I just don’t get it. Is this a bit of sour grapes that the Governor doesn’t want to use the money to hire more wildlife officials to count butterflies, bats and look out for piping plovers and so MDIFW has decided to spend the money on something that probably ought to be handled by the private sector, especially at a time when money is tight all over. In your face?
Isn’t it a matter of priorities and sound, sensible investment. A loss of a deer herd and the hunting industry will cost the state millions of dollars. Using this money toward that goal, of which the plans are drawn and everything ready, only makes sense; not improving rifle ranges. Not now!
Is MIDFW still praying global warming is going to take care of the deer problem? That’s my bet.
August 13, 2012
An article in Bloomberg recently, lamented about the problems encountered by communities and individuals from having too many deer. Maine does not have that problem, with the exception of a few isolated areas in which hunting essentially is prohibited.
While the author bemoans the results of having too many deer around, even to the point of suggesting a resuscitation of “market hunting”, his blame that he puts on hunters, while partially accurate, needs a bit more of an explanation behind it.
The author claims that, “The hunters who are supposed to control the deer want to keep the numbers up so they have a better chance of shooting a buck. They support changes such as the New Jersey measure to allow bow hunting closer to houses, but they generally oppose efforts to reduce the deer population.”
First off, it’s not the responsibility of hunters solely to “control the deer”. Our money, in the implementation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, is to be used for game and wildlife management utilizing proven and best scientific practices. The goal of which is a healthy forest. We don’t strictly “control” deer populations but that is just one part of a sought after deer management plan. The author fails to give credit where credit is due.
Secondly, a sweeping and broad statement that hunters only want to shoot bucks is a bit misleading. Studies still reveal that the majority of hunters would like to bring down that so-called “trophy” buck, they also realize the odds are seriously stacked against them and thus, as the season wears on, they are looking for meat to fill the freezer.
Third, to state that hunters, “generally oppose efforts to reduce the deer population”, cannot stand alone. Hunters are the first and best conservationists. This has been forgotten and intentionally so in recent years because of environmentalism and anti-hunting and animals rights activism. The problem that rears its head in deer population reduction comes from the influence of environmentalists, whose real goal is to end hunting and thus convince the masses that deer numbers need to be “about five [deer] per square mile”, as is stated in the article. This effort was attempted in Pennsylvania and created quite a stir. Hunters will protect their investment but most know when there are too many deer and are anxious to do something about it. The problems come because there are too many restrictions that prevent the killing of more deer during hunting seasons.
Therefore, most opposition that this author might be referring to coming from hunters that oppose the reduction of deer numbers, is in opposition to radical killing of deer disguised as an effort to save the forests and songbirds.
It’s also quite laughable that while some so-called environmentalists call for the radical reduction of deer numbers, the same ones oppose the reduction of any amount of large predators that are destroying other species, as is the case in Maine where coyotes, bears, bobcats, etc. are being protected while the deer herd disappears. Why is there a difference in species management?
What this all comes down to is wildlife and forest management based on agendas driven by huge sums of money as opposed to proven scientific methods.
When will we learn?