December 18, 2018

Return to a “Savage” State

The below article has been sent for publication in the local newspaper, The Bethel Citizen.

James Beers, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee who spent considerable time in Washington, D.C., who became a whistleblower discovering as much as $60 million was stolen from Pittman-Robertson Federal Excise taxes to be used for reintroducing wolves to the Northern Rockies and other illegal activities, recently said that if we are not willing to put a stop to the current “Ecological Theory” that places man as equal to or lesser than that of plants and animals and “spiritual rewilding” our forests and plains, this lack of action will “…return all of us eventually into a “savage state.”

The definition of “civilize” is “to bring out of a savage state.” As our civilization advanced from what some have perceived as uncontrolled slaughter of many of our wild animals and destruction of the habitat that confronted the settlers, through responsible wildlife management which led to developing an understanding of the cooperation of both consumption and conservation, establishing the North American Model of Wildlife Management, we are now moving in a direction that is calling for a hands-off approach to plant and animal management; establishing wilderness and predator protection based somewhat on the belief that Nature produces a preferred outcome.

If the land was in a “natural” state when we found it, i.e. “savage state,” working to restore it to what it once was, or what we think it once was, surely must be a return to an uncivilized, savage state.

We have and are being misled that leaving things up to Nature, will provide for a stabilization of animal and plant existence, i.e. that Nature achieves a “balance” where everything is Nirvana. My very good friend, Dr. Valerius Giest, a professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, says that the Utopian belief in nature, free from the hands of man, achieving balance is “intellectual rubbish.” Life consists of constant negative and positive feedback loops where everything is in constant change.

Leaving it to Nature will yield what Nature has to offer. Reality shows us that Nature’s results are not what most of us prefer. We prefer control and manipulation to achieve healthy plants and wildlife as best possible, while at the same time continuing to provide an opportunity for that long-held, civilized existence of regulated hunting, trapping, and fishing.

If we prefer a healthy existence for our wildlife, someone has to manage and control it. Nature will not, contrary to what some believe, give us what we want in this civilized society. Taking from the resource in a responsible, scientific approach is a cooperation that undertakes the task of managing wildlife for a healthy bounty and providing opportunities for those who wish to take sustenance from that resource. It’s a win-win.

It seems with each passing year, the grumbles and groans get louder and louder of the need to end hunting, fishing, and trapping. As it currently stands, we exist in a back scratching situation where licensed hunters, fishers, and trappers pay the costs of wildlife management in return for an opportunity to reap the rewards of taking from the resource. To deny that privilege, thinking wildlife will manage itself is wrong thinking. To steal it away with a belief that wildlife will control itself is uncivilized, returning us eventually to the previous savage state.

The next time you see a hunter, trapper, or fisherman, thank them for providing the means of responsible conservation so that all of us can enjoy a healthy wildlife.

 

Share

Repeating False History of Wolves

The other day I was reading an article in which the author quoted a section of Maine’s Game Management Plan for deer. The portion quoted that caught my eye was: “In the 19th century, extirpation of wolves and cougars from Maine allowed deer to further expand and increase in number essentially unencumbered by predation.”

The use of the term “extirpate” is interestingly convenient. According to an Online definition and from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, extirpate is defined as “root out and destroy completely” and/or “to destroy completely; wipe out.” Upon further examination of “wipe out” I discovered: “the act or an instance of wiping out: complete or utter destruction; a fall or crash caused usually by losing control”.

It would, therefore, be safe to conclude that to extirpate something – in this case, wolves and cougars in Maine – would involve the deliberate act of men to purposely, or without knowledge, “completely destroy” and wipe out populations of these predators. Is this factual history?

I guess that depends on who you talk to and what you choose to believe according to what most conveniently fits your agenda, ideology, and narrative.

The use of the term extirpate, which points a big fat accusatory finger at evil men, is forever used when any form of wildlife disappears or more accurately within this lopsided and misinformed society when wildlife doesn’t appear in numbers to satisfy the social demands of some.

To environmentalists and to animal rights perverts, Man is evil. They cause about as much chaos as global warming – which is also caused by man in their eyes – and at the same time hunting causes wildlife species to grow. According to the expert EnvironMENTALists, hunting, fishing, and trapping has and is causing the extirpation of wildlife species every day, and yet, when convenient, that same action causes species like predators to magically perform some sort of compensatory increase in sexual activity and a boost in reproductive rates. Scientism on full display, bolstered by Romance Biology and Voodoo Science.

According to the quote by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), wolves and cougars in Maine were extirpated (by men) in the 19th Century and this act caused the population of deer to grow “unencumbered by predation.”

I have not spent a lot of time read searching cougars in Maine but I have studied the history of wolves and coyotes in Maine quite extensively. It appears that MDIFW, and all willing and eager True Believers, want to believe that man by deliberate intention “completely destroyed” the wolf population in the state. And yet, there is little history that supports that statement.

History is loaded with accounts of the troubles that Mainers had with wolves dating back into the 1600s and yet little is written about many wolves being killed for those actions, not necessarily due to lack of trying.

Actual historic accounts of wolves in Maine, show their presence but, like the deer population, there was no honest way of knowing what the real population of wolves was other than anecdotal evidence. It is more convenient for us to make up population estimates pertaining to history in order to complete our narratives.

In some cases, there were bounties established in hopes of ridding the residents of depredation attacks on their livestock, but there is no history that shows a systematic approach to “extirpate” the wolf and cougar from the Maine landscape.

Aside from the fur of the wolf during the winter months, neither animal had much value – certainly, it was not a food source. It isn’t to say that the open season on wolves and cougars didn’t contribute to the control of these predators, but history simply doesn’t give a blanket cause and effect of what happened to both of these large predators, especially to be able to continue to state that man extirpated these beasts – directly or indirectly.

Sometimes we get so caught up in our angst and eagerness to blame the existence of the human race on everything, including global warming, we put aside honest historical and scientific research and take the easy way out. Such is the case here I’m afraid.

Maine’s historical accounts of wolves actually show an interesting phenomenon – or at least from my perspective based on my read search. Maine also used to have caribou roaming about the countryside, mostly found in the northern half of the state. It is either unforgotten or never learned that wolves, will eat deer but prefer elk, moose, and/or caribou. But let’s also not forget that when hungry and wolf will eat anything, including dirt to stop the hunger pangs.

Maine history tells us that when wolves and cougars were part of the countryside, deer migrated south, away from the large predators, and often took up residence on the islands off the coast of the Pine Tree State – their learned adaptation for survival.

Environmentalists eagerly want to blame the actions of man for the “extirpation” of the caribou. At the time caribou were present in Maine, there were little management and regulatory guidelines to ensure sustainability. But, like the wolf, did man “extirpate” the caribou from Maine?

Not according to many historical documents. Perhaps more accurately we see an interesting phenomenon that happened in Maine. It is written by some historians that suddenly the caribou, for reasons at the time unexplained, simply migrated out of the state and likely found their way into Canada. Whether directly related or not, along with the departure of the caribou, disappeared the wolf – the common sense explanation given that the wolves simply followed their preferred food source.

As a society, we tend to hate men and their actions, while at the same time near worshiping animals and extolling their intelligence. Some animals are quite crafty and to ensure survival, these animals learn to adapt.

Man, on the other hand, was given a brain, and while at times I might question whether we know how to use it, generally speaking, we have used our brains to figure out there must be limits and plans devised and carried out in order to maintain wildlife populations. For the most part, these actions have done remarkable things where most negative consequences seem to be the result of actions by environmentalism and animal rights groups, i.e. perpetuating and protecting large predators at the expense of other more valuable species such as game animals as a useful resource.

I might suggest that it would do a world of good if men would learn to use that brain a bit more to discover the full truth of historical wildlife accounts and stop repeating what somebody else said simply because you like it or it sounds good. That does no good for anybody.

Share

Time to Stop Blabbering About “Climate Change” and SHUT UP ALREADY

Oh, my! I just read a sorrowful report from a writer lamenting about all the changes he’s seen in his lifetime caused by Climate Change. Here’s a summary:

Lyme Disease – evidently the ONLY reason there are more deer ticks is due to Climate Change. Forget all the other science on the subject. Climate Change is it!

Hemorrhagic Disease in Deer – Again, to those smitten with the nonsense of Climate Change, the ONLY explanation is Climate Change. Don’t look for real answers.

Minnesota Moose Loss – Disregarding all historic and scientific accounts that easily explain the loss of Minnesota’s moose, the mentally challenged can ONLY focus on Climate Change.

Loss of Habitat – I think this one is funny and probably perpetuated by none other than the crook and lying SOB Al Gore. Deer are dying in Maine because of loss of habitat and the “two consecutive BRUTAL WINTERS” are to blame. Huh? Oh, that’s right Mr. Gore. Climate Change (we’re all gonna die) causes everything and anything. While freezing to death and struggling to pay heating bills, global warming is causing it.

Maine’s Moose – Maine’s moose are suffering from the infestation of a blood-sucking tick. To a blind person, the ONLY reason there are more ticks is that of Climate Change. Even though the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has come out and said their studies indicate the increase in moose ticks is being caused by too many moose, Climate Change is the ONLY possible answer. Which brings me to another point. It has been said that due to Climate Change wildlife in Maine that are at their southern border habitat (the moose and Canada lynx to name two) are being affected and will be migrating northward toward cooler climes. If Maine, as this writer laments, is suffering so from Climate Change, how has Maine been able to grow its moose population from near zero to a point where biologists finally think there are too many moose? In the reverse, the whitetail deer, it has been said, is at the northern fringe of its habitat. (A convenient excuse when management has failed) If Maine is suffering so from Climate Change, then wouldn’t it make sense that the deer population should be growing? Instead, it’s shrinking. And yet, Climate Change is the ONLY answer.

Fish Habitat – I will concur that the cutting of forests around brooks and rivers causes the water in those waterways to warm. This phenomenon is bound to have effects on fisheries. But it is NOT Climate Change that is causing it.

Weather – Weather is not necessarily climate. Since the beginning of time, we have experienced weather and weather phenomenon. That will continue no doubt. Since the beginning of time, there has been flooding and droughts. There are more answers to these events than to label it all Climate Change.

And if you think the Climate Change blame game can’t get any worse, we see here that sporting camps in Maine are shutting down due to “the loss of hunters and anglers.” And that loss, of course, is because of Climate Change.

I wonder if the author ever considered that maybe the loss of hunters and anglers is caused by a changing society that threatens you with your life, sometimes, if you dare harm an animal by hunting it or hooking it with a lethal hook? Or perhaps these camps have lost hunters and anglers because the management of the game animals is so poor, now heavily taken over by environmentalism, people who once traveled to Maine for their hunting and fishing are looking elsewhere or have simply given it up.

But no, all of this is because of Climate Change.

Melting Ice and Rising Water Levels – The author speaks of one article he read of how the ice in Greenland is melting faster than at any time in the last 450 years but fails to mention that, even if that is going on, the ice in most other places is growing at a rate much higher.

And, we’re all gonna die because “sea levels may rise as much as 20 feet.” I would suggest the author read how it is virtually impossible to melt enough sea ice to cause sea levels to rise.

But Don’t Go Look!

The author says it’s time to stop talking about Climate Change and do something about it. A more sensible solution is to stop talking about such fabricated nonsense, designed for instilling fear and increasing profits, and actually get back to looking for real solutions to real problems and stop blaming everything on something that doesn’t really exist.

If the MDIFW has honestly concluded that the winter tick problem is due to too many moose and intend to do something about it, I congratulate them on not simply walking away and blaming it on Climate Change.

Is there hope?

Share

“Eastern Wildway” – Environmentalist’s Fantasy, Nightmare For Everyone Else

When you examine the list of environmentalist groups that support the idea of an “Eastern Wildway Network,” it immediately can be seen as nothing more than a totalitarian nightmare or over-regulation, land seizures, and access denials. Along with such a plan would come the complete destruction of the North American Model of Wildlife Management and the promotion of the introduction of large predators being forced into man-settled landscapes.

If you don’t see all this as part of the NEPA plan and Agenda 2100, then you have a lot to learn. It’s time you started before you wake up some day…..dead!

Backers of ‘Eastern Wildway’ Plan to Present Idea in Maine

A Maine environmental group is hosting a presentation about the concept of an “Eastern Wildway” to help wildlife travel across North America.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Deer Management is Such a Tough Job…So What!

In a recent column I published on this website about Maine secretly hiring a new head deer biologist, I finished that piece by saying, “The echo chamber and all their minions will just continue to parrot that MDIFW does such a wonderful job. Perhaps they do but surely there is a lot of room for improvement. Is that taboo with this new scientism-laced wildlife management we are in the midst of?”

Perhaps it’s my imagination or maybe I just am determined to be tough on fish and game departments, but it appears to me that too often fish and game departments are not only given a free pass for poor results but some go out of their way to enable their failings and will make excuses for them.

Why are some so eager to pass off failures in game management as the result of a “tough job?”

Immediately after I published the above linked-to article, I read how biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) “have an extremely tough job regulating Maine’s Deer Population.” The posting was replete with all the usual suspects of excuses; winters, weather, vehicle collisions, starvation, predation, and poaching. If the owner of this writing was finding excuses for poor deer management, he should have included “Climate Change” as it provides the convenient escape for any failure.

In another article I read this morning, deer managers have a “thankless job.” The piece ends with the following statement: “I believe, for the most part, our biologists do a commendable job when it comes to managing wildlife resources. But it’s a difficult and sometimes thankless task, given financial and logistical constraints, the bureaucracy they must wade through, and pressure from supervisors, legislators, lobbyists and special interest groups. Even within the hunting community, there’s sometimes disagreement over how to best manage our deer herd. It’s a balancing act, and the more time and energy biologists must devote to managing people, the less they can direct toward our wildlife resources.”

Does this mean we should all shut up and let the deer managers do as they wish regardless of the outcome? I hope not. I understand the statement. I understand that managing deer (or any other game species) is an “extremely tough job,” and that this job, at times, can be thankless. But what job can’t? Is there something wrong with expecting a better return on your investment? Would you settle for unsatisfactory results from your doctor, lawyer, banker, or school? I think not.

One is entitled to their opinion as to whether any game management establishment does a “commendable job.” That opinion is of one’s value-weighted perspective. I’m sure that even though a person may believe a fish and game department does a “commendable job” there must be room for improvement, and shouldn’t we expect it and even demand it?

If you visited your doctor, who had been treating you for a chest cold for weeks on end, only to discover later you actually suffered from lung cancer, would you just say, “The doctor has a tough and thankless job, full of financial restrictions, political influences and a vocal public that expects too much. Give him a break. Just let him do his job.”

Your banker or stockbroker has a tough and thankless job. If you lost your money, would you expect and demand a better job? Do you think bankers, lawyers, stockbrokers, doctors, teachers, etc. don’t have pressure and regulation all around them making their jobs thankless and tough? They all have to work with the cards they are dealt, sometimes those cards being far less than ideal, and yet don’t we expect that doctors will keep us healthy, lawyers out of trouble, teachers to educate our children, etc.?

There’s nothing wrong with thanking and complimenting those who do jobs that directly and indirectly affect parts of our lives. We don’t have to exclaim their tough and thankless jobs and not still demand a better performance.

Greatness is not grounded on the principle that doing an adequate job is enough. Greatness in an individual or an establishment is the expectation that everything must be the best that it can be, exceeding all expectations, in everything that is done. Settling for mediocrity is accepting failure and what is the future in that?

Share

The Left-Controlled Takeover of Wildlife Management

I have written often about the Leftist Animal Rights’ takeover of wildlife management. I have often reminded readers of the outward display of mostly free-flowing power among these leftists who vowed they would change the way wildlife management was looked at and carried out in this country. And they have.

In these discussions, I have also attempted to articulate to readers how, as part of the takeover, this progressive, leftist disease has oozed into every fabric of our lives, i.e. education, media, politics, etc. at every level of society. We know, for example, that “brainstorming sessions,” “breakout sessions,” “planning meetings,” “leadership seminars and symposiums,” and all other similar events are designed for one purpose and one purpose only – to manipulate and change the way people look at and discuss social issues (wildlife management).

To put these thoughts and known existences into some sort of order that makes sense, is accurate, and spoken in truth, is a difficult thing for me to do. I wish I was better at it.

Today, I found words written by another man that seems to fit the lamentations that I have had about how our wildlife management departments have been taken over by the progressive’s diseases. Mostly I have described that takeover as coming from our departments of education, where the Left dominates, packaging thought-controlled, brainwashed, automatons and readying them for shipment to the next wildlife management department to perpetuate and build on the takeover.

In the article that I read, the author speaks of how human resources departments throughout corporate America have systematically been taken over by the Left. Think for a moment the power and control a human resources department has over who is employed and at what capacity.

The author describes this affair thusly – and you may need a dictionary handy, as I did, to grasp the full impact of what he is saying: “Like a suppurating orifice, the human resource department provides an ideal site for the multiplication of the bacterium politicus correctus. For one thing, such departments are always organized as top-down, unaccountable bureaucracies. HR departments are known for their arbitrariness masquerading under the rubric of “policy,” Wizard-of-Oz-like impersonality, and slavish conformity to faddish diktats promulgated as “best practices,” weenie speak for “do it my way.” In this sense, HR departments are like pseudopods of progressive government bureaucracies grafted onto the pliant stock of corporate timidity. It is not surprising, then, that HR departments tend to attract meddling and astringent personalities whose most cherished delight revolves around lording it over others.”

The next time you wonder just what in hell your favorite fish and game department is doing that is destroying everything wonderful that you learned as a child fishing, hunting, and trapping, just pull out this gem and you’ll have your answer.

You can fight it or jump in bed with it. The choice is yours, although you may not know the difference.

Share

Secretary Zinke signs Secretarial Order to Support Sportsmen & Enhance Wildlife Conservation

Order seeks to expand access on public and private lands and to promote hunting and fishing among youth, veterans, and minority communities

9/15/2017

Date: September 15, 2017
Contact: Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke signed Secretarial Order 3356, which will support and expand hunting and fishing, enhance conservation stewardship, improve wildlife management, and increase outdoor recreation opportunities for all Americans. Secretarial Order 3356 is an extension of Secretarial Order 3347, issued on Zinke’s first day, March 2, 2017. That order identified a slate of actions for the restoration of the American sportsmen conservation ethic, which was established by President Theodore Roosevelt.

The new order comes days after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a survey that found there are 2.2 million fewer hunters in America now than in 2011. The order seeks to improve wildlife management and conservation, increase access to public lands for hunting, shooting, and fishing, and puts a new and a greater emphasis on recruiting and retaining new sportsmen conservationists, with a focus on engaging youths, veterans, minorities, and other communities that traditionally have low participation in outdoor recreation activities.

“Hunting and fishing is a cornerstone of the American tradition and hunters and fishers of America are the backbone of land and wildlife conservation,” said Secretary Zinke. “The more people we can get outdoors, the better things will be for our public lands. As someone who grew up hunting and fishing on our public lands – packing bologna sandwiches and heading out at 4AM with my dad – I know how important it is to expand access to public lands for future generations. Some of my best memories are hunting deer or reeling in rainbow trout back home in Montana, and I think every American should be able to have that experience.

“Today’s Secretarial Order is the latest example of how the Trump Administration is actively moving to support hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation on public lands. This means finding ways to expand hunting and fishing on public lands, improving access, and taking necessary actions to facilitate the enjoyment of these time-honored activities by any member of our society.”

Secretarial Order 3356 directs bureaus within the department to:

  • Within 120 days produce a plan to expand access for hunting and fishing on BLM, USFWS and NPS land.
  • Amend national monument management plans to ensure the public’s right to hunt, fish and target shoot.
  • Expand educational outreach programs for underrepresented communities such as veterans, minorities, and youth.
  • In a manner that respects the rights and privacy of the owners of non-public lands, identify lands within their purview where access to Department lands, particularly access for hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and other forms of outdoor recreation, is currently limited (including areas of Department land that may be impractical or effectively impossible to access via public roads or trails under current conditions, but where there may be an opportunity to gain access through an easement, right-of-way, or acquisition), and provide a report detailing such lands to the Deputy Secretary.
  • Within 365 days, cooperate, coordinate, create, make available, and continuously update online a single “one stop” Department site database of available opportunities for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting on Department lands.
  • Improve wildlife management through collaboration with state, Tribal,? territorial, and conservation partners.

“On behalf of the 5 million hunters, recreational shooters and members of the NRA, we commend Secretary Zinke for continuing to follow Teddy Roosevelt’s sportsman legacy by opening more land and water to hunting and target shooting,” said Chris Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association. “In the past, management plans for federal lands have been put in place to ban hunting and shooting. Sportsmen and women can now breathe a sigh of relief that those days are over. This administration values access to public lands for sportsmen and we commend them for it.”

“For too long, sportsmen’s access to our federal lands has been restricted, with lost opportunity replacing the ability to enjoy many of our best outdoor spaces. This extension to Secretarial Order 3356 will go a long way to reversing that trend and help grow the next generation of hunters, fishermen, and recreational shooters,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “I appreciate this new order and am committed to working with Secretary Zinke and my colleagues to do everything we can to expand and enhance access to our federal lands for all Alaskans, and all Americans, so that we can continue our rich sportsmen’s heritage.”

“Restoring wildlife habitat and expanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation will help increase wildlife populations and connect millions of Americans with our nation’s natural treasures,” said Collin O’Mara, President and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “Secretary Zinke’s order demonstrates his commitment to collaborate closely with conservation organizations and state agencies to achieve these critical conservation outcomes. We look forward to working with the Secretary, the Department, and our conservation partners to recover America’s wildlife and connect every American with nature.”

“Secretary Zinke’s action today follows in the great tradition of President Teddy Roosevelt and recognizes the central role that hunters play in conservation and successful wildlife management,” said Lawrence G. Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “The National Shooting Sports Foundation is deeply grateful to Secretary Zinke for the historic Secretarial Order that he signed  today. NSSF has worked closely with, and in support of, Interior Department officials on these priorities and other positive steps announced today. Today’s action will serve to benefit current and future generations for years to come.”

“Americans depend on reliable and affordable access to public lands to participate in outdoor sporting and recreational activities,” said Chairman Rob Bishop. “Unfortunately, these lands are not being managed to facilitate consistent, open access. Today’s Secretarial Order to increase these opportunities strengthens the foundation of our country’s hunting and fishing heritage and helps ensure that sportsmen and women continue to enjoy access to our federal lands and waterways.”

“For many Americans, hunting and fishing wouldn’t be possible without public land and the access it provides for these pastimes. Secretarial Order 3356 represents a renewed commitment to working with our nation’s sportsmen and women to ensure that our legacy of hunting and fishing-driven conservation continues to stand the test of time,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane. “We applaud Secretary Zinke for recognizing the critically important role that expanded federal land access plays in achieving this goal.”

“We support Secretary Zinke’s order to expand opportunities for hunters and anglers on BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service and Park Service lands as well as on private lands,” said David Allen, President and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. “Access to quality wildlife habitat remains one of the most significant factors impacting hunting and fishing participation throughout the country. This order will help ensure sportsmen and women continue to have opportunities for quality recreational experiences on public lands and potentially private lands.”

“Generations of Idahoans, including me, have passed on their love of hunting, fishing, and shooting sports to their children and grandchildren,” said Senator James Risch, Co-Chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. “I applaud Secretary Zinke’s quick action to protect those fundamental rights and expand access for sportsmen and women across the country.”

On his first day in office, Secretary Zinke reversed an order that would have banned lead ammo and tackle on National Wildlife Refuge lands, and he began the process of expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands across the Department.

In August, the Secretary announced a proposal to expand hunting and fishing opportunities at 10 national wildlife refuges, and he announced the initial stages of a plan to acquire land to make the Bureau of Land Management Sabinoso Wilderness Area accessible for the first time ever to hunters, hikers, and wildlife watchers.

In addition, Secretary Zinke recently made recommendations to President Trump on 27 national monuments that call for changes to some that, while still protecting the land, would also protect and expand public access to that land for citizens who want to hunt, fish, and hike and experience the joy and beauty of these special places.

Share

Making It Up As You Go Along

I was sent a link to Richard Fernandez’s latest article called, “Making it up as You Go Along.” The link was accompanied by a note that remarked that in reading the article he was reminded of how wildlife management and wildlife biologists operate in this post modern area of scientism, i.e. making it up as they go along.

Share

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

Press Release from House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 16, 2017

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

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

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

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

Background Information:

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

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

Click here for additional information on the rule.

Share

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s how it might work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidently this is the case.

 

Share