July 19, 2018

Selective Blindness, Changing Perceptions and the Growing Cultural Divide

Today I laughed. I actually laughed or at least grinned several times. Why? Mostly because I do not willingly exist in what most would consider this “normal” world – normal being whatever each individual and group of individuals has determined to be correct and thus normal. Because of my sometimes “out-of-planet” experiences, witnessing the normal, but to me, abnormal, events of the day must cause laughter. Without it, I’m not sure the results.

Most entertaining is when intellectuals(?) wander down roads of philosophical bliss, pointing out the obvious, created by the obvious, for the obvious, but pause in confusion, not understanding such creations, or better yet, intimating that the answer must lie in some unexplored human psyche beyond mortal comprehension. Yikes!

At the root of this laughter, sometimes contrasted with anger and disgust, was a long, sometimes rambling essay of what, in part, was the transformation of human attitudes and perspectives about life in general and living with predators more specifically. The author writes:

We have become tame in Europe, and that is a good thing. Europeans are on the whole no longer wild or savage, as we certainly were a thousand, five hundred, or for that matter sixty-seven years ago. The potential for savagery and bloodthirstiness remains within us, as shown with such dreadful clarity during the war in the former Yugoslavia in 1991?1999. But we are for the most part tame and prefer that state-sanctioned bloodletting on a large scale happen outside the borders of the European Union. And that is, all things considered, a good thing. No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers. The same can be said about our relationship to animals. Most aspects of the living conditions of pets and farm animals are regulated by law in the EU. For wild animals, there are special habitat directives.

My initial reaction to reading this was to ask, what world does this person live in? But then, I realized it wasn’t what world he lived in but my own existence shuns the false world he displays. While what he writes certainly may reflect his perceptions of things, I believe it only substantiates the success of the work of those who control this world and all that is in it. There must be considered the absurdity or insanity that, “state-sanctioned bloodletting” is acceptable beyond the bounds of the newly perceived “tameness.” Talk about living a life of blinded ignorance. To accept the premise of, “No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers,” is to accept a lie and live it. More people would live in fear if they realized that all of this still exists today but is well-hidden. Media control and manipulation, outright lies and deceit, propaganda and control prohibits us from seeing the terrible things that are going on all around us.

The author admits, and accurately so, that this same attitude of blissful blindness and the denial of existing savagery, carries over into how people want to distinguish themselves and their coexistence with animals, both wild and domestic.

To this the writer states:

But something has been lost in the advance of civilization. In pace with the introduction of the refrigerator, hot running water, bathrooms with subfloor heating, and cable TV, our relationship to things wild has changed, especially our attitudes towards the predators among us. The bear, the wolf, the wolverine, the lynx: all have been transformed in our minds into symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions. It is human nature to do so, and in a way, one could argue that this has been the case for much longer than since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, the already simplified traits have become more starkly black and white in modern, highly urbanized societies.

From the perspective of one suffering from “out-of-planet” syndrome, a serious argument could and should be made about whether or not civilization has advanced or regressed. There is no arguing the claim that “attitudes toward predators,” has changed, certainly, that man has established most animals as “symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions” to a point where animals are given equal or superior rights to man and are always discussed with terms using human identification.

We know that out of World Wars I and II, the rapid growth of understanding the human mind and how to control and manipulate it, was exploited, for all the wrong reasons. How did it become possible that our minds see things in a completely different way than how our parents taught us and their parents taught them?

But is this really human nature to see animals from this perverse perspective? I don’t think so. It is learned or probably, in this case, planned programming of our minds in order that changes forced onto people for sinister reasons by perverts with more to gain and without one care for the welfare of any animal…or even you for that matter.

The author touches on one of the reasons for the changes in attitude when he writes:

Out in the country, that argument does not hold full sway, at least not in the areas where the predators are actually found. Country people’s empirical knowledge runs deeper and is often — though not always — more complex and objective than city people’s. The problem with European attitudes towards “our” predators, however, is that most Europeans live in cities and not in the countryside.

And the plan, as it appears to me, is to work toward changing the dynamics of human population densities so that urban dwellers surpass in numbers those of the rural world. For certainly their exists differing attitudes and perspectives between the two cultures. It would make perfect sense that if someone or group of someones was interested in control they would work using whatever means possible to grow the numbers of whichever side was ideologically prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause. This may sound a bit extreme, but is it in reality? When you consider the words, the attitudes, the hate and the anger being perpetuated throughout, often targeted or presented as urban against suburban, somebody must have an important task to undertake.

We are but duped pawns!

Share

Secretary Zinke Creates New Council for Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation

Date: January 9, 2018
Contact: Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov

WASHINGTON – Continuing his unyielding support for hunting, fishing, and the American conservation ethic, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today announced the creation of the Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council. The Council is intended to provide the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture with advice regarding the establishment and implementation of existing and proposed policies and authorities with regard to wildlife and habitat conservation. The Council will examine ways to benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, the sporting conservation organizations, state, tribal, territorial, and federal government; and benefit recreational hunting and recreational shooting sports.

“Hunters and anglers are the backbone of wildlife and habitat conservation in America. Through the purchase of duck stamps, bows, ammo, firearms, and more, sportsmen and women contribute billions of dollars to conservation. From my perspective, the more sportsmen we have in the woods and waters, the better our wildlife and habitat will be,” Secretary Zinke said. “The Council will be made up of experts that share their knowledge, experience, and recommendations on a number of policy proposals put before them, as well as helping the Departments come up with innovative ideas to improve the health of wildlife and their habitat and increase sportsmen access on public and private lands.”

The Council is strictly advisory and the duties will consist of providing recommendations for implementation of Executive Order No. 13443 (E.O.): Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation, Secretarial Order No. 3347: Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation, and Secretarial Order No. 3356 (S.O.): Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories.

Recommendations from the Council to the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture shall include, but not be limited to:

  • Assessing and quantifying implementation of the Executive Order and Secretarial Orders across relevant departments, agencies, offices, and recommendations to enhance and expand their implementation as identified;

Policies and programs that:

  • Conserve and restore wetlands, agricultural lands, grasslands, forests, and range land habitats;
  • Promote opportunities and expand access to hunting and shooting sports on public and private lands;
  • Encourages hunting and shooting safety by developing ranges on public lands;
  • Recruit and retain new shooters and hunters;
  • Increase public awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and the social and economic benefits of hunting and shooting;
  • Encourage coordination among the public, hunting and shooting sports community, wildlife conservation groups, state, tribal, territorial, and federal government.

Since his first day in office, Secretary Zinke:

  • Reversed an order that would have banned lead ammo and tackle on National Wildlife Refuge lands.
  • Expanded hunting and fishing opportunities at 10 national wildlife refuges
  • Signed a wide-ranging order to expand sportsmen access on public and private land, improve collaboration between the federal, state and Tribal wildlife management authorities, and create a “one-stop” website for all hunting and fishing opportunities on public lands
  • Directed bureaus to open hunting and fishing on all national monument lands where legally allowed
  • Finalized a land acquisition to make the Sabinoso Wilderness Area accessible to hunters for the first time ever

Individuals may submit comments and/or nominations by any of the following methods:

  • Mail or hand-carry nominations to Joshua Winchell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; or
  • Email nominations to: joshua_winchell@fws.gov

The Council will meet approximately twice a year, and at such other times as designated by the Designated Federal Officer. The Council will terminate 2 years from the date the charter is filed, unless, prior to that date, it is renewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the FACA. The Council will not meet or take any action without a valid current Charter.

The Council is established to further the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd), other Acts applicable to specific bureaus, and Executive Order 13443, “Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.” The Council is regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

Share

“Keystone Species”: The Nauseating Narrative of Convenience

In a rebuttal to an article written by George Smith, outdoor writer and activist, Karen Coker, head of Wildwatch in Maine wrote: “…aggressive beaver trapping prevents them from fulfilling their unique role as a keystone species.”

Like everything in this post-normal world, where real science has been tossed to the side swapped for Romance Biology and driven by special interest, the use of the term “keystone species” seems to have become one of convenience. In the public relations battle, it has become common place to take up the same strategies as the Vatican in determining that the end always justifies the means. In this case, say anything in order to promote your agenda. The agenda is, therefore, “keystone.”

But don’t be mistaken, this strategy is not relegated to only one political side.

To label any species “keystone” denotes that it is top shelf, that without it, serious consequences may befall an “ecosystem” (whatever that is). If you Google “keystone species” you get this: “a species on which other species in an ecosystem largely depend, such that if it were removed the ecosystem would change drastically.”

When personal and political agendas are at stake, any object can and does become a keystone species of utmost importance. Pick one, pick any. When attempting to approach any discussion or activism driven by agendas and politics, rather than an honest scientific approach (and please, enough of stating that you are the holder of real science already), invoking “keystone” tells a reader that the recipient of such a designation must be extremely important. However, what is always left out is the whole picture. It is always presented, as is written in this rebuttal, only in part. The part to supports the agenda.

The author further writes: “The rich wetlands beavers create support thousands of other wildlife species.” This is true….partly. The “rich” wetlands beavers create also destroys thousands of other wildlife species and that is not being considered. Some beavers are a good thing for our “ecosystems” (whatever those are) and more does not necessarily mean better. In fact, it becomes worse as beavers can be extremely destructive.

In Google’s definition of “keystone species” it says that if the species were removed, “the ecosystem would change drastically.” Some definition. Change, in this context, can fit anyone’s agenda. Political agendas and activist organizations are founded on the driving principle that a pet project is top shelf and will cause “drastic” changes. In one’s desire to protect beavers, or whatever the pet animal of the week is, removal of that species, to any degree, presents “drastic change,” and that change is always of the worse kind…in their minds.

One would like to think that wildlife managers understand the need to limit how many “rich wetlands” the countryside is inundated with. And that they also understand that these “rich wetlands” to some are an oasis and to others, death valley.

So enough of the “keystone” crap! For years I have listened to every Tom, Dick and Harry fall all over themselves, labeling their pet project to promote fundraising as “keystone,” “apex” and vitally essential to the salvation of the ecosystem (whatever that is).

While groups take up this strategy, void of actual and honest scientific processes, they also expose their ignorant hypocrisies and double standards. Case in point: Coker makes sure she gets in her jabs by bringing in names that are sure to rile up the masses on her left – NRA, Sportsman’s Alliance and “other powerful special interest groups.” She laments the idea that Smith and any member of these “powerful special interest groups” might “rally and unite their constituents with the message,” while she is rallying and uniting her “powerful special interest groups” with a “message” against what she claims to be Smith’s.

There’s nothing new here and it is all quite nauseating. Coker repeats, often, that her totalitarian (because it aims to force social change on others) special interest group’s appointment to life is, “giving ethical and ecological considerations a much larger role in wildlife policy and decision-making.” Golly, this sounds almost exactly like the Environmentalist-Leftist-Totalitarian purpose “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.”

Several years ago Environmentalism vowed that it would change the way we discuss and handle wildlife management. What they refused to tell the public that this change was void of the real scientific process. It is now all about social tolerances and the forcing of one group of totalitarian’s ideology onto others who have no interest in it.

Wildwatch Maine wants to place animals on a plane with people, giving them ethical and ecological considerations in order to be more humanlike. They want to control wildlife policy and decision-making void of science and driven by Romance Biology and ideology.

 

Share

If Half Our Wildlife Populations Are Missing Since 1970, You Must Go To College

The other night I was watching a college football game on television – University of Florida vs. University of Massachusetts. For those who often watch a college athletic event on television, at least once during the telecast each college is given some air time to sell their university. The other night was no exception.

The University of Florida began their commercial exploiting children, presenting them in a setting of gloom and doom because the planet around them was vanishing and we were not doing enough to “save the planet.” Embedded in the exploitation was the implication – while a child looked at a tree and the narrative says something like, it’s the only planet we have – that if this one tree dies or its resource used, there will never be another tree to replace it. Shame on them.

Near the end of the propaganda piece, the narrator says, “Since 1970 over half of the world’s wildlife has disappeared.” You don’t have to be a scientist to realize that statement is a crock of bologna. I did a little searching and found what was probably UF’s source to include this statement. It’s unfortunate for the university and the millions of dollars that have been spent sending children to that university, and others, that indoctrinate them with such utter nonsense.

While the World Wildlife Fund has successfully convinced enough people that their Living Planet Report is scientific, evidently, at least the recruiting arm of the University of Florida, didn’t bother to conduct any scientific research of their own, before making a statement used to promote their university. After all, fear mongering of the masses has always been successful in getting people to blindly follow the other sheep over the cliff.

The Report itself, if one would spend a couple of minutes reading, tells us that for most of the categories of wildlife the WWF opts to use for their report, half of the species within each category are increasing and half are decreasing, which is mostly a natural phenomenon. From that, the WWF and UF have concluded that the world’s wildlife populations have disappeared by one half. Amazing.

What drives this is money. The University of Florida, and I’m sure countless other universities, are willing to lie, cheat and steal to pay their bills in addition to making gobs of money. Ignorant, brainwashed, propagandized children and parents blindly dole out hard-earned money to send their children to schools that, evidently, believe and promote propaganda. The tragedy is nothing is learned. Truth matters not, with this approach, whether wildlife is growing or decreasing.

The U of F, in their commercial, was selling their university as one of the leaders of environmental science in this country. To achieve that ranking, and not be questioned, they only need repeat the lies this government and their environmental wonks promote, instead of applying true scientific methods, once used to learn truth, not to gain federal grants to further propagandize the world.

Share

Rockholm: Wolves Are Destroying Our Wildlife

Share

Growing Wildlife for Roadkill to Collect “Scientific” Data

So, let me get this straight. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) grows wildlife, such as deer, moose, turkeys, bears, lynx, bobcats, snakes, and frogs in quantities such that people run over and kill them. (The more the merrier?) After the roadkill action, “citizen scientists,” as they are called (do they wear brown shirts?), move in and report the killing to wildlife biologists who collect data from the road-killed animals.

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!

If none of this gives reason to pause, consider this idiotic venture as being “modeled” after KALIFORNIA! What could go wrong?

Evidently it’s impossible to collect data because you can’t drag a computer into the woods with you.

IdiotCrossing

CatDrivingCar

 

Share

IFW Wants To Hear Your Opinions Concerning Maine’s Wildlife

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

Dear Maine Hunter,

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is embarking on a study to revise its longterm big game management plan.  There have been several opportunities for resident input into the process, including a scientific survey and a series of focus groups (residents, hunters, and landowners were randomly selected to participate in each). 

However, MDIFW wants to hear from all hunters, and there are two ways you can be involved in the process.  The first is through an online “Town Hall” forum allowing hunters to submit comments to the agency and discuss big game management with one another. 

The big game Town Hall forum can be accessed here:  www.metownhall.org.

The second way to participate in the process is by attending one of the public meetings on big game management taking place this month and next.  

The public meetings on big game will be split between meetings for deer, moose, and turkey issues and meetings for black bear issues:

Deer, Moose, and Turkey Management Public Meetings:

  • Saturday, March 19 from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.; Embassy Suites, 1050 Westbrook Street, Portland, ME 04102, Katahdin Room
  • Saturday, March 19 from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.; Northeastland Hotel, 436 Maine Street, Presque Isle, ME 04769, Red Room
  • Saturday, April 2 from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.; Black Bear Inn, 4 Godfrey Drive, Orono, ME 04473, Blue Room

Bear Management Public Meetings:

  • Wednesday, March 16 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.; Embassy Suites, 1050 Westbrook Street, Portland, ME 04102, Katahdin Room
  • Wednesday, March 16 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.; Northeastland Hotel, 436 Maine Street, Presque Isle, ME 04769, Red Room
  • Wednesday, March 30 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.; Black Bear Inn, 4 Godfrey Drive, Orono, ME 04473, Blue Room

Many hunters in Maine are also anglers, and a similar research process is being conducted to update MDIFW’s fisheries management plan. 

An online Town Hall for fisheries management issues is accessible at www.mefish.org.

Here is the schedule for the public meetings on fisheries management issues:

  • Thursday, March 17 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.; Embassy Suites, 1050 Westbrook Street, Portland, ME 04102, Katahdin Room
  • Thursday, March 17 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.; Northeastland Hotel, 436 Maine Street, Presque Isle, ME 04769, Red Room
  • Thursday, March 31 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.; Black Bear Inn, 4 Godfrey Drive, Orono, ME 04473, Blue Room
  • Tuesday, April 5 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m.; University of Farmington, Lincoln Auditorium, 224 Main Street, Farmington, ME 04938

Thank you for your interest in Maine’s fish and wildlife resources.  We hope to hear from you soon.

Share

Beware the Surveys Remember the Delphi Technique

NewOldRopeThe State of Maine is in the middle of gathering information from licensed hunters and fishermen, and in some cases the general public, that we are told they want in order to better make decisions on how to proceed with and create new wildlife management plans. Science used to be and still is the best way.

Two surveys were recently completed by Responsive Management in cooperation with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). One is the 2016 Maine Big Game Survey that collects responses from licensed hunters, both resident and non resident, large land owners and the general public, about hunting in general and specifically about land access and big game species of bear, moose, deer and turkeys.

The other survey, completed by the same entities, collects responses from only licensed fishermen, both resident and non resident. There will also be public meetings held across parts of the state to listen to the public about big game management and fisheries management. Check the MDIFW website for times and places.

Surveys and polls are basically useless instruments. To what severity the uselessness is achieved is dependent upon the methodology of the poll or survey, i.e. who is surveyed, the demographics, who funded the survey, and how the questions are asked and the words used to form the questions. I have taken some time to examine the survey results for both the hunting and fishing reports. As far as surveys go, these two are not terribly bad at manipulating questions and/or concluding answers that are misleading. But…..

Before I get into a couple of specifics of these two surveys, let me give readers a chance to understand how questions and answers are manipulated to achieve desired results. I’m not suggesting that anything in these surveys was done deliberately. I am suggesting that through indoctrination over the years, survey and poll administrators learn how to present questions from trained experts who do know how to fudge data. There is lots of money to made from doing that. Even though in this case the administrators may not have deliberately devised questions to mislead, human nature, along with the truth of polls and surveys, will render faulty results.

For those who have read my writings, and in particular read my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?“, we know that during the process that led up to the (re)introduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Congress granted $200,000 to a group who wanted to introduce wolves, to answer specific questions Congress had about the wolf. (The questions are immaterial to this article)

Because this group wanted wolves badly, they set out to prove to Congress, truth be damned, that wolves were a good thing. This is where a faintly recognized term surfaced – the Delphi 15. This came about because this Congressional-appointed group went out and contracted (not necessarily for money) 15 “scientist” to answer some questions that the group would use to convince Congress. The 15 scientists were kept secret and none of them knew that there were any others involved, thus, they did not know their names.

I discovered through research that this group, ordained by Congress, quietly and as secretly as they could, opted to use what is called the Delphi Technique to achieve the answers they were looking for that would fit their wolf narrative. 15 scientists, unknowingly conned via the Delphi Technique, and there we get the title, The Delphi 15.

To better explain about the Delphi Technique, below is posted what I wrote in my “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” book.

 

The Delphi Technique

Take notice that Dr. Bergerud, in his email states that: “I believe US Fish and Wildlife hired a consultant with questionnaire skills.” Bingo! That is what the Delphi technique is1. Some of us may not know much of anything about the Delphi Technique but I’m willing to wager most of us have been Guinea pigs to it.

The best way to define what the Delphi Technique is in simple terms is to say that it is a method in which those administering a brain storming session, or in this case a “questionnaire,” manipulate the questions and the procedures in order to get the end result that is desired. Let me give two classic examples of this.

First would be a poll. Every day in our lives, perhaps more so in the news, we are constantly being barraged by the results of polling. Should we believe the results of the polls we are given? Absolutely not, especially when we are not given the questions and the structure and context to which those questions were presented.

Most of us have taken poll questions. Have you ever been given one in which you really could not find the “correct” answer? That is the honest answer you would give if you had that opportunity. That becomes the result of the Delphi Technique.

The other, perhaps not quite as obvious and a part of everybody’s life, is a brain storming session. These take on several names, such as, symposium, seminar, public forum, town hall, etc. I’ve been involved in many but for most of them I had no idea what was really going on. I certainly do now and avoid them like the plague.

Those administering the event, are usually led by one or two people. It is those people who “know what they are doing.” They want to achieve a specific result and therefore must manipulate the setting and events to their advantage – much in the same way as a magician.

Let’s say that you attend a public forum to gather input from the public on ways to make your community a “better place.” Who gets to decide what a “better place” is? What most people don’t know is those administering the forum have already decided what will make your community a “better place.” Their job is to make you think you were part of the decision making process. All they have to do is present some kind of evidence that shows the majority of people in your community decided what was a “better place” and to make it happen.

Often we find ourselves being placed into “breakout sessions.” These come complete with a table and/or chairs in a circle, an easel board and a facilitator. It’s the trained facilitator’s job to force the hand to achieve a desired result.

During this brain storming breakout session, you might be asked to offer ideas on what would make your community a better place. Take notice the next time you find yourself in this setting, that the facilitator will prompt or edge the group with “ideas” of his or her own. These “ideas” are predetermined. Seldom are there ever results during the forum. We might be told that what the consensus was will be shared. It can easily be said, because each facilitator, by instruction, added to the list the same “idea”, making it a majority “consensus.”

Imagine what the results would be if the administrator and the facilitators only offered up questions, like in a poll, that forced participants to provide answers they didn’t really want to.

Dr. Bergerud indicated in his statement, the tactics used by Delphi administrators. He said that nobody in the group of 15 knew who the others were. This is very important. They could not, before, during or after, consult with each other. After all, they might discover they had been duped.

In the Volume I Summary of “Wolves for Yellowstone: A Report for the United States Congress,” the report willingly exposed some of the schemes of the Delphi Technique when they wrote that they had withheld important information from the 15 members, seeking their opinions of the subject. Does the “Best Available Science” operate on opinions obtained from scientists who are denied information and data? Does this “science” have “different meaning for different people?”

In essence that is the Delphi Technique that was used on the “Delphi 15” of those commissioned by the United States Congress to get answers to 4 questions. Do we have the exact questions given to the 15 members? Do we have the exact answers provided by the 15 experts? Is this what is described by the United States Government as “Best Available Science?”

<end>

Within the two surveys used in Maine, sometimes questions are asked while seeking an answer from more than two choices. The wording of the choices can be crafted in such a way as to mislead, or misdirect the survey taker. In addition, the responses sought after may not cover the full spectrum of what the person being survey might answer if simply asked to tell their opinion of something. It is also relevant to report that when people read such reports, they cherry pick, or are misled, and see only what they want to see or what the administrators of the survey want them to see.

Let me give a couple of examples from the hunting survey. In offering summaries and explanations of methodology, the surveyors wrote: “Another question gauged respondents’ comfort level regarding wildlife around their homes. Using a continuum from the most comfortable (“I enjoy seeing and having wildlife around my home or on my property”) to the least comfortable (“I generally regard wildlife around my home or on my property as dangerous”), a large majority of each group (70% of the general population and 80% each of landowners and hunters) chose the highest comfort level, and nearly all the rest chose the second most comfortable level.”

Many of you may ask what’s wrong with that. It’s easy to explain really. Surveyors are seeking what they call “comfort level” but they don’t directly define what that means. Instead, they offer us an example of both ends of what they call a “continuum.” Note that at the “least comfortable” the choice offered is that they “generally regard wildlife…as dangerous.” Dangerous? Where did dangerous come in? Can’t property owners not care whether they see wildlife even if they don’t think it’s dangerous? Think of the possibilities of how questions and choices of responses can certainly misrepresent truth.

Another example in the hunting survey has to do with gathering input about the respondents on their knowledge of the animal specie bear, moose, deer and turkeys. Exactly how the survey takers were asked the question I don’t know, but the results show that an overwhelming majority of people answered that they knew “a great deal or a moderate amount” about the four species. This, of course, is simple self-perception. If the survey question does not contain qualifiers, like do you have a degree in wildlife biology, surely of what value does such a question hold? Is this used to convince the uneducated public and unsuspecting wildlife managers that because the respondents know so much about the species, their answers have scientific value? (only if convenient?)

In the fishing survey what struck me most about this survey was this, written in the Executive Summary: “The study entailed a telephone survey of resident and nonresident licensed anglers in Maine, age 16 years or older. ” The survey is designed ONLY for licensed fishermen – resident and non resident. While the hunting survey involved the general population, the fishing survey does not. While perhaps not completely necessary, from what I gather, the surveyors didn’t go out of their way to explain why the general public was not also survey about fishing and their support or non support of the sport. Isn’t this important to wildlife managers? They tell us repeatedly that as far as hunting goes, they must make their decisions based on social toleration. Therefore, the survey provides no examples of why a member of the general public might choose not to fish. Isn’t it just as important to understand the reasons to not fish as well as what kind of fishing one prefers.

Let me further explain. I was reading George Smith’s article this morning about how this fishing survey proves that anglers don’t care if they catch big fish or a lot of fish. This may or may not be true, but do we really know that? Smith also writes: “Is it possible that if the fishing or hunting sucks for a long, long time folks forget what they are doing.  Habit without product?  The new breed of conservationist?”

This statement also holds a certain amount of truth. There’s also another byproduct of Maine fishing and tainted surveys that can be misleading and/or not giving the whole picture, as we see above. Smith writes in his article that Maine fishermen, 77%, support catch and release rules and yet the survey says that 81% of fishermen did not choose to fish in designated catch and release waters. Choosing what fits our narrative?

To fully understand the results of the fishing survey, you would have to fully understand the demographics. While demographics are in the survey, the average person cannot distinguish why people mostly fish with a spinning rod and reel and yet support catch and release rules. Is it that they prefer everyone else practice catch and release so they have more fish to catch and keep? Or, as it appears to me, whoever presented the question asked it in such a way as to create confusion and/or mislead. According to what Smith wrote, he said that 77% of fishermen “support” catch and release rules. Does that mean they WANT more catch and release rules or we just being told to think that catch and release is preferred over catch and keep?

The answer is, we don’t know, nor does this survey tell us. Therefore, if we bear in mind that statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, managers, sportsmen, pundits and my grandmother can pull out of these surveys anything they want that fits their narrative. I suppose MDIFW managers will do the same thing, which leaves us with the question, why did we spend all this time and money on these useless surveys?

There will be public meetings where citizens can go and say their piece. There will also be an Online survey where anyone interested can offer comments. Please bear in mind what I hope I have taught you here.

When it’s all said and done, MDIFW will spend the greatest part of their time copying and pasting all the previous game management plans and adding a little change here and a little change there. So why can’t we spend the money and time on worthwhile events?

Share

Stop Mental Drool Now!

If you read this, you’ll need one of these.

BearDroolElix

 

Share

Can Animal Cams Help Stave Off Climate Change?

*Editor’s Note* – What non thinking insanity is rearing its ugly head in this country/world. No thought here is given to anything except the selfish desires of perverted animal lovers, caring only for their own greedy desires, as Techonzombies, to destroy the wild places real wild animals live, and promoting it as saving the planet. Can it get any more stupid?

If one is stupid enough to believe the utter nonsense that man is causing the planet to warm, then consider, if it’s at all possible, what exploiting wild animals with Web cameras is doing to destroy the planet. Do these inconvenient truths not matter to ignorant hypocrites out to satisfy their uncontrollable addictions to technology, believing another fake “scientist” when he/she says all of this will save the planet? It’s akin to Algore flying his private jet around telling you and I we must sacrifice in order that he can keep flying.

The mere promotion of more and bigger and better web/trail cameras demands more natural resources and the process to build them increases their so-called carbon footprint. Then consider disposal of these items once a better camera is made. What effect does that have on the planet?

In addition, because of trail cameras capturing events that cause mentally disordered people to demand something be done, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars and gallons and gallons of fossil fuels were spent to save a bear that had a trap around its neck? Do any of you think with more and more people watching animals that demands for more wasteful spending won’t increase? And with it the carbon footprint. That’s solving global warming?

This article claims that people will no longer need to travel great distances to see animals “in the wild” (Bwahahahahaha) because they can watch them on TV/cellphones/computers/”eye”pads. Is that a proven theory? If so, why not tear down all the sports stadiums in the country. People can sit at home and watch. Close down the national parks and wildlife preserves. Think of the money we can save by just locking the gates and let web cameras provide for entertainment. Close down New York’s Central Park. Just be there “virtually” and display it on the wall of your living room. SAVE THE DAMNED PLANET FOOL!

If you think for a moment people might not stay home, then perhaps you also need to consider that because people so much like what they are seeing on their computers, they just have to drive, fly, take a boat, whatever, and go see it in person. I contend intrusions into places people probably shouldn’t be, will increase. They sure don’t understand human nature…nor do they give three rat’s behinds about respecting nature.

It appears to me as a way to exploit wild animals for profit. If these con artists can propagandize enough stupid people, consider how much money stands to be made. TECHNOZOMBIES! Present on their electronic devices and they will do anything.

Oh, my! We ARE hopeless!

“It’s going to be much more what did the elephant see as it was walking through Nepal? What’s a black-and-white colobus seeing as it spends its day?” says Wilkie. “Cameras are going to get small enough and with mesh networks,” in which multiple computer users are wirelessly connected and share information, “even the forests could be connected. Rather than a gigantic transmitter, you’d have a tiny transmitter that just needs to talk to the nearest way station.”

Like many conservationists, Wilkie believes that developing new technology like this is critical to engaging the next generation of screen-savvy digital natives, even if it means they catch glimpses of nature’s bloodier side.“

Just caring about one individual is not going to solve our ecosystem-wide problems or may be somewhat of a distraction, but I would also argue that that passion can drive an entire societal ethic,” says Joel Dunn of Chesapeake Conservancy. “And that ethic leads to people that vote for politicians that will prioritize the environment, it helps them donate to groups like ours that try to protect these places and species, and it breeds the next generation of conservation leader.”

Source: Can Animal Cams Help Stave Off Climate Change? | Outside Online

Share