October 21, 2019

Google The U.N. Environmental Policies Clone The Wildlife News and Wear Your Hip Boots.

Starting around 1980 Purposely mismanage wildlife and fish for years. In 1994 start a wolf population. Continue to mismanage wildlife for years. Make the U.N.E.P. clones look like they know what they’re talking about. Even though they do not. {throughout the 1980s when hunters complain at IDFG scheduled meetings about mismanagement of the big game resource tell the hunter[s] who see the mismanagement polices to shut up.

Somehow those pro wolf groups overlook prior to wolf introduction hunter success rates versus post wolf introduction hunter success rates based upon previous harvest data and previous tag opportunities now reduced by 80% due to wolf population mismanagement in states where wolves have been introduced for years.

Somehow these left wing pro wolf groups overlook game management hunter success rates where hunting management methods have been around for decades. It would be nice if their UNEP cloned attitudes increase the decline in members of their silly group echo chambers..

Sell 5,000 elk tags in an area [48-49-Idaho} that only holds 1600 elk, while the back country around the agricultural lands is sterile of big game animals.

The deep back country of Central Idaho is no longer carrying a respectable number of elk and deer anymore, nor large carnivores.. To me from my experiences traveling Idaho’s back country via horse and mule to no longer see cougars, bears, sows with cubs, black and grey foxes, coyotes, wolverines along with the elk and deer herds, is a far cry from a wolf regenerated success story.. It’s another man made failure of epic proportions..

Throw wolves into a meat grinder then curse at the meat grinder. Isn’t self responsibility for your own advocacy awesome? I think so..

WLNs useful tools want some blowback? You got it..

Share

A “Naturally Occurring” Fungi To Kill Moose Ticks? What Possibly Could Go Wrong?

Oh my! I was reading this article about how entomologists have discovered what they call a “naturally occurring fungi” that, in lab conditions, attacks and kills the dreaded winter tick, or moose tick, that is being blamed for killing moose in numbers not satisfactory to the wildlife managers…or so it keeps being repeated.

The idea, evidently, is to figure out what dosages and how to apply it to the forests so that it finds its way to the ticks/larvae in order to have any affect. We should be asking, what could possibly go wrong?

Reading the article, it is difficult to make actual sense from much of it because it is laced with repeated mythology about the winter tick – such things as how global warming contributes to the increased number of ticks on the landscape. Mixed in with the mythology, we can extract a few comments, etc. from the scientists who are working on this project – enough to at least say, what to ???????

This is the part that causes normal thinking people to scratch their heads in confusion wondering about the hypocrisy in thinking, or the lack thereof.

Yesterday I wrote a short piece about the criminal U.S. Senate, who in one breath say we are all gonna die because there are too many cars and too much carbon dioxide, which is warming the planet, and…and…and…yes, we are all gonna die if they don’t do something about taking our cars away from us so members of Congress can fly bigger, faster planes. In the next breath, the Senate unanimously approves a bill to better promote America’s Scenic Byways, to encourage more people to drive more cars, longer distances…and what the hell happened to we’re all gonna die?

When it comes to ticks, cast aside are any thoughts from the post-normal society of automatons who claim they want Mother Nature to rule everything. They believe hunting, trapping, and fishing should be stopped because of animal’s “rights” and that actions such as these are destroying game animals and in return just the thought of hunting is having negative effects on the entire ecosystem – that man should just butt out of any sort of wildlife management and let things take a “natural” course.

But then, along comes somebody with a potentially dangerous suggestion of how to kill winter ticks (a naturally occurring entity) in order that we can artificially grow more moose. Forget any notions that the real reason there are so many ticks is because there are too many moose and “Mother Nature” is doing what it does to kill off much of the moose population as a means of attempting to mitigate the tick problem, which is, must be anyway, upsetting the ecosystem. Oh, my! Are we all gonna die?

So, another question is, what is the purpose of thinking that a “naturally occurring” fungus might kill off the winter tick? Is it because this effort has monetary profit? Is it because we are all gonna die from too many ticks? Is it because some people want to have more moose to play with?

And here’s a brilliant question. If the fungi that can kill winter ticks is “naturally occurring” then why isn’t it, in the grand scheme of Natural Regulation, already mitigating the winter tick problem and any other problem that might be solved by its existence?

In the entire article I can’t find anywhere any kind of discussion of protection and growth of the moose as a food source. In a normal existence, moose as a food source would be the number one consideration of any need to protect and/or grow a crop. No more. Post normal existence is about cherry picking ideas and actions that fit the narratives of the moment – and to hell with food sources…well, until I they get hungry.

Maine had perhaps as many as 100,000 moose. Greed and selfishness cause people to begin making demands for more moose for profit. Instead of obtaining understanding of why there were so many moose on the landscape all of a sudden and that one day when that reason for a population explosion went away, something was going to have to change, the intention of the moose biologists was to figure out how to keep growing moose so that everyone had one as a pet in their back yard (not for food).

The notion here is to figure out what kind of a dosage is needed to apply to the “naturally occurring” “earth and leaves” where the “naturally occurring” winter tick lands in Spring to lay “naturally occurring” eggs that begin the cycle all over again. Might I also mention here that whether there is ice and snow or not on top of those “naturally occurring” “earth and leaves” whatever it is at that time is “naturally occurring?” How dare I!!!!!

The article presents stunning photographs of a cluster of winter tick larvae at the end of a stick of vegetation “questing” for a host. When that host (moose, elk, deer) walks by, they climb aboard. Gee! What if there just weren’t so many darn hosts?

Instead of managing moose in numbers that are healthy…(Note: It was only a short while ago that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife announced they were going to abandon wildlife counts and concentrate on causing wildlife to be healthy.) the interest seems to be in protecting and growing them in numbers to satisfy the selfish desires of a post-normal society that is obsessed with securing animals as friends and not as a food source.

With a focus on how to kill the winter ticks to protect the moose, and other ungulates (that really are not bothered so much by the ticks -moose are poor groomers) has any consideration been given to the collateral damage that might take place if and when scientists begin sprinkling a “naturally occurring” fungi in unnatural quantities?

Isn’t this entire effort really being based on the supposition that man-caused Climate Change is the culprit for everything? Combine that with misguided notions about wildlife and the purposes for its existence and, like promoting more driving while at the same time demanding people stop driving, ignorance in the causes and effects of “natural occurring” and man-caused events can potentially destroy much, if not all, of what people think they are trying to protect.

It would appear that we have continued ideas, much like our ready acceptance of a piece of paper that allows someone to “practice” medicine, so too are pieces of paper licenses for someone else to “practice” wildlife management and “practice” growing fungi. Like medicine and the demands for drugs by patients, wildlife practitioners are under pressure from a post-normal society that demands animals to play with, even at the expense of all other things…for that moment.

What can possibly go wrong?

Share

Some Environmentalists Say…

I was recently accused, if that’s the word, of “broad-brush stroking” when making a comment about how “Environmentalists” want to control every aspect of our lives through senseless (no, seriously) regulation to a point now that it has become serious over-regulation.

So, fearing that someone who identifies as an “Environmentalist” might accuse me of lumping all environmentalists into the same cauldron of stewing rotten meat, let me say that SOME environmentalists (and yes, probably SOME on the RIGHT and SOME on the LEFT and SOME in the MIDDLE) have a very peculiar form of circular thinking (actually it is lack of thinking otherwise they wouldn’t be so stupid to be making certain statements and accusations) especially when it comes to how hunting causes so many “bad” things to happen.

I have been known to state that those who perpetuate the myth of Global Warming, that is, in the sense in which they attempt to sell it, have a very similar form of circular reasoning as SOME do when it comes to the effects of hunting.

We know, because we listen (for some unknown reason) to those who blame Global Warming on everything…yes, EVERYTHING, that Global Warming causes both hot and cold…sometimes at the same time. Global Warming is the cause of anything any believer would like to blame it on. Hunting isn’t all that much different from the perspective of a circular thinking environmentalist and/or an animal rights advocate.

Many dinosaurs have gone extinct because Cave Men hunted them to extinction. In the more modern era, buffalo went extinct because man hunted them. Caribou are going extinct because man hunted them. Elk had to be reintroduced because man hunted them to near extinction. Mountain lions, we are told, have gone extinct in many portions of the U.S. because man hunted them. Gray wolves, red wolves, Mexican wolves, wolf wolves all went extinct because man hunted them. Pick a species…any species and some Environmentalist will tell you it went extinct because man hunted them (whether they did or not).

However, to SOME environmentalists, hunting also causes certain populations of animal species to “compensate” for losses caused by hunting. So which is it? If hunting causes species to go extinct, how can hunting also cause species to grow to numbers too big? Like Global Warming causes hot and cold, floods and droughts, wealth and poverty, hunting evidently will cause both extinction and compensatory replenishment.

How convenient!!!

Share

Wood Cutting Adventures

Share

There Is Intelligent Life In Canada

Share

Secretary Bernhardt Proposes Increasing Public Access to Hunting and Fishing on 1.4 Million Acres Nationwide

Proposal Includes New Opportunities at 74 National Wildlife Refuges and 15 National Fish Hatcheries

June 5, 2019

Contact(s):

Contact: Interior_Press@ios.doi.gov
Vanessa Kauffman, 703-358-2138, vanessa_kauffman@fws.gov


Oak Harbor, Ohio – Furthering the Trump Administration’s efforts to increase access to public lands, U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt today announced from Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge a proposal for new or expanded hunting and fishing opportunities at 74 national wildlife refuges and 15 national fish hatcheries managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) across more than 1.4 million acres.

“President Trump is committed to expanding public access on public lands, and this proposal is executing on that directive by opening and increasing more access to hunting and fishing by the Fish and Wildlife Service at more stations and across more acres than ever before,” said Secretary Bernhardt. “Hunting and fishing are more than just traditional pastimes as they are also vital to the conservation of our lands and waters, our outdoor recreation economy, and our American way of life. These refuges and hatcheries provide incredible opportunities for sportsmen and women and their families across the country to pass on a fishing and hunting heritage to future generations and connect with wildlife.”

The proposal would increase the number of units in the Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System where the public may hunt from 377 to 382, and the number where fishing would be permitted would be increased from 312 to 316. The proposal would also formally open lands on 15 hatcheries of the National Fish Hatchery System to hunting or sport fishing for the first time.

The proposal also outlines a comprehensive revision and simplification of all refuge-specific hunting and fishing regulations in all 50 states to more closely match state regulations while continuing to ensure safe and compatible opportunities. The Service worked closely with the states in preparing the proposed rule.

“Well managed hunting and fishing are the backbone of conservation in this country, but inconsistent or overly complex regulations can act as a disincentive,” said Service Principal Deputy Director Margaret Everson. “By aligning our refuge regulations with our state partners, we are reducing confusion and the regulatory burden on the American public, helping ensure the tradition and benefits of hunting and fishing can continue.”

New proposed refuge opportunities include the opening of Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Wisconsin to hunting and fishing for the first time and the opening of Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming to deer and elk hunting for the first time on lands already open to other hunting.

Proposed expansions of refuge opportunities include the opening of new acres at St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge in Florida to existing upland and big game hunting, and, at Great River National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois and Missouri, the expansion of season dates, times and methods for existing deer, turkey and other upland game hunting to align with state seasons.

Proposed changes at hatcheries include the formal opening of lands on Leadville National Fish Hatchery in Colorado to migratory game bird, upland game and big game hunting, and the formal opening of lands on Iron River National Fish Hatchery in Wisconsin to migratory game bird, upland game and big game hunting. Inks Dam National Fish Hatchery in Texas and Little White Salmon National Fish Hatchery in Washington are proposing to formally open their lands to sport fishing. An update to hatchery regulations is also included in the proposed rule.

“The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies is delighted by this announcement of a continuing commitment by the Department of the Interior to expanded access for regulated hunting and angling, on National Wildlife Refuges, in partnership with state fish and wildlife agencies,” stated Ed Carter, President of the Association and Executive Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. He added, “We need to get people outside to enjoy the lands and waters, and fish and wildlife resources, of our great nation. This is an important step in that direction!”

“The announcement today by Secretary Bernhardt is incredibly welcome news and builds off great progress in increasing access to refuge lands the last two years,” said John Devney, Senior Vice President, Delta Waterfowl. “Duck hunters have been leaders in investing in the refuge system and this action will provide them with new access and opportunities. We are sincerely grateful to Secretary Bernhardt and the Fish and Wildlife Service staff who have worked hard to create these new opportunities for hunters.”

“The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation applauds Secretary Bernhardt for his efforts to expand hunting and fishing opportunities within the National Wildlife Refuge System,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane. “This announcement builds off momentum generated over the last few years through Interior Secretarial Orders, and advances recent recommendations submitted by the Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council to increase hunter and angler access to federal lands and waters, including the Refuge System.”

Hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities contributed more than $156 billion in economic activity in communities across the United States in 2016, according to the Service’s National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, published every five years. More than 101 million Americans — 40 percent of the U.S. population age 16 and older — pursue wildlife-related recreation, including hunting and fishing.

The Service will seek comments from the public on the proposed rule for 45 days, beginning with publication in the Federal Register in coming days. The notice will be available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket Number: FWS-HQ-NWRS-2019-0040, and will include details on how to submit your comments. An interim copy of the proposed rule is now available.

The Service intends to finalize the proposed changes in time for the upcoming 2019-2020 hunting seasons.

A complete list of all refuges and hatcheries in the proposal is available in the proposed rule and online.

For more than 145 years, the National Fish Hatchery System has worked collaboratively with tribes, states, landowners, partners and stakeholders to promote and maintain healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic species. There are 70 national fish hatcheries visited by more than two million people each year. Hatcheries offer opportunities for viewing the operations and learning about fish, as well as activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, sightseeing, nature study, birdwatching and photography.

The Refuge System is an unparalleled network of 567 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts. There is a national wildlife refuge within an hour’s drive of most major metropolitan areas. More than 55 million Americans visit refuges every year. National wildlife refuges provide vital habitat for thousands of species and access to world-class recreation, from fishing, hunting and boating to nature watching, photography and environmental education.

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service permits hunting and fishing along with four other types of wildlife-dependent recreation, including wildlife photography, environmental education, wildlife observation and interpretation, when they are compatible with an individual refuge’s purpose and mission. Hunting, within specified limits, is currently permitted on 340 wildlife refuges and 37 wetland management districts. Fishing is currently permitted on 278 wildlife refuges and 34 wetland management districts.

The Service manages hunting and fishing programs to ensure sustainable wildlife populations while also offering other wildlife-dependent recreation on public lands.

Share

Maine Conservation Bond Issue: Stop Whining For Crying Out Loud

There is a proposal in the Maine Legislature to issue a bond to buy land for conservation. This proposal (only a proposal) is LD911. If this proposal passes the Legislature (two-thirds of BOTH Houses) it will then go before the VOTERS in the following November general election. There is nothing new here. This is the legislative procedure for ALL bond issuance elections.

Because there are whiners who hate hunting, trapping, and fishing, they take issue with this bond claiming it usurps local control, along with bitching and complaining that hunters and trappers are the most vocal groups in the state and always get what they want, blah, blah, blah.

The writer of the piece linked to above claims that the wording of the proposed bond issue is deliberately misleading the public by not telling voters that if the Land For Maine’s Future buys land to protect and conserve, the land will have to be open to the public for all access, including hunting, trapping, fishing.

The wording of the proposed bond issue (which can be changed during the Legislative debate process) is as follows: “Do you favor a $95,000,000 bond issue to invest in state parks and historic sites, land conservation, water access, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities, including hunting and fishing, farmlands and working waterfronts to be matched by at least $75,000,000 in private and public contributions?” (emboldening added)

It’s not as though the emboldened words were not included in the bond proposal. However, any whiner could object to this bond being used “unfairly” for state parks, historic sites, water access and any other State of Maine requirement stated in law. Sometimes we have to be grownups and deal with such things as sharing the land and not opening it up to preferred ideological uses.

I fail to see how there is any attempt at concealing from the public that public money used to buy public lands is open to hunting, trapping, and fishing…along with a myriad of other uses (no complaints about that?)

There is a process in place and the issuance of bonds is no new thing. Nothing is hidden, and in this case, LD 911 is rightly available for any voter to read…all the “fine print” that to the writer of the commentary seems to be misleading or hiding information from the public.

Or maybe the writer is hoping all readers will just believe his words and not bother to go read the entire proposal (It takes about 10 minutes if you are slow reader like me.)

Because, if you go read the proposed bond wording you’ll discover such things as, “Hunting, fishing, trapping and public access may not be prohibited on land acquired with bond proceeds, except to the extent of applicable state, local or federal laws, rules and regulations…” (emboldening added)

Oh, oops! Seems that local governments do have rights and some control as it may pertain to “dodging bullets.” But, there is no more local control than a voter going to the polls and actually casting a ballot that would, as a democratic collective, decide whether any purchase of public land MIGHT negatively affect them. You love your democracy, now live with it!

State law requires that when, through Land for Maine’s Future purchases, certain percentages of that money and purchase must be used for such things as protecting working waterfronts, protecting farmland, and public access to water, among others. The writer also forgot to tell his readers that in this particular bond issue the state MUST give preferential treatment to the purchase of deer wintering habitat to protect deer. Listening to the writer one would think that this money was only going to be used so hunters can kill more deer.

Like with any election and voting process, the onus of knowing what you are voting on should fall into the lap of the voter. As I said, nothing is completely hidden and anyone who actually cares will read the “fine print” and make their decisions on that and not on some anti-hunting activist.

Now that you have heard the truth of the issue and have been given a link to the bond proposal to read, you now have to decide whether it is a good thing to give the state more land to control, thus controlling you, while removing that land from the tax rolls and placing a larger burden of taxes on you the voter.

Think about that one for awhile.

Share

“Nonnative” is Nonsense

Here is an article that talks of how “nonnative” plants and animals are causing all kinds of troubles within our ecosystems. This is really quite nonsensical in the grand scheme of things.

Truthfully spoken in this article is the notion that we, as the “apex” predator and the ones who hold “dominion” over the plants and animals, work at managing our ecosystems in ways that fit our ideals. Bastardized “democracy” always stands in the way of sensible management, and gets tainted by powerful special interest groups who are bent on forcing society to accept their ways or face their wrath.

There is room for everyone, but somehow that has been lost or stolen.

The notion that anything inside of this floating disk in “nonnative” is actually nonsense. All things on earth are native to earth. Even in the article it speaks of a certain species of tree that, due to “changes” migrated from China to the U.S. , on its own, according to the article, and yet we still clamor and get upset over “nonnative” plants and animals.

It is true that we may not want certain species because of their destructive ways – that is destructive as defined by the ideals and perspectives of those wishing a certain existence within an ecosystem – but calling such plants and animals nonnative or “invasive,” isn’t entirely accurate. Perhaps “invasive” works if we don’t want a certain species interfering with how we want things to be like.

We see this everyday in our management of the flora and fauna. How we manage is most often based on what we desire. In today’s Post Normal existence, it has become who has the most money and can scream the loudest that “wins.”

A useful resource has, historically, been managed to pay benefits. An example would be hunting, trapping, and fishing. Yes, these activities in the past were more readily perceived as necessary for subsistence. The resources still are highly demanded but that doesn’t stop those that want that ended based on such things and rights of animals and their “inhumane” treatment. This coming from a society that readily accepts murdering of unborn babies. Where does inhumanity exist?

Managing our species for scarcity makes no sense at all. Locking it up believing somehow it protects a renewable resource ventures in the realms of insanity.

Somehow, we have gotten on the track that so-called invasive species and nonnative species are the works of evil men without the realization that much of this “immigration” of species occurs naturally.

And yet, we still should be managing our ecosystems accordingly with focus on keeping unwanted, often destructive, species out and taking away the determination of removing the human users.

Share

Progress: Or When Others Don’t Give a Damn About You

Here’s an interesting story about how some, in Maine, who depend on and choose to live “off the grid” may be negatively affected by Central Maine Power Company’s proposal to destroy a large segment of the forest, along with disrupting wetlands, and watersheds, in the name of saving the environment.

The underlying truths in this affair is part of what is destroying this country and falsified beliefs that “this land is your land” and/or that We the People really are we the people and all things are owned and controlled by other men with their power.

Out in the open we can clearly see, from reading the comments at the end of the article a minimum of two things: First, the extent of the brainwashing that exists as it pertains to the environment and “Climate Change,” and, second, on full display is what the lovers of Democracy truly enjoy the most – two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

Lost is the real value of what life could and should be like for those who choose such…not what is forced on them by someone else’s ideals, backed by dirty money and a give-a-crap attitude by those blinded by truth and the useless eaters of the world.

The idea behind the power line proposal is to bring “clean” energy from Canada to Massachusetts. If Massachusetts need electricity make it within their own damned state and not off the backs of people trying to live a lifestyle of their own desires. Maine is what draws and keeps people there. Changing it to be just like Massachusetts makes it nothing different than the miseries of Massachusetts.

I don’t get it and never will…thankfully.

Misguided environMENTALists rave on about saving the environment and yet support such nonsense as windmills and hydropower that far more destroys the environment than saves it. One would think that a true environmentalist would be in full support of these kinds of people who choose to live off the grid and use, not abuse, the renewable natural resources the Creator intended for us.

That simple comparison should shed light on how we have all been deliberately misled…but it falls on closed doors and shuttered windows.

Share

Destroying a Species Makes Little Sense

But then again, little that is done in this insane, post normal society makes sense; a well-intended and fantastically designed intervention.

H.L. Mencken, a long-ago journalist and editor of the Chicago Daily Tribune, is often credited with caustic quotes he made over the years and some he didn’t make.

One of his most quoted passages, I have read, is actually a paraphrasing of a longer piece he wrote nearly 100 years ago. Today’s quote goes like this: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

In his same piece, addressing what he called “near-illiterates,” he also wrote about the publics’ choices in what they read, what they understand, and the politicians they opt to blindly follow: “The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.”

These acerbic descriptions of the general public can be applied to any topic of interest in the world today – Climate Change, wildlife management, animals in general, name any politician, politics, media, etc.

The planned design of the ignorant True Believer of today consists of mostly non thinking, contradictory, and emotional people incapable of the realization that they are actively seeking their own destructions most often by wrecking what’s around them for what they have been indoctrinated into believing is a bigger and better cause.

A quick example of this might be pointed out when examining wind power. “Near Illiterates,” cleverly manipulated, have been blinded to the fact that in order to erect windmills more of the environment is destroyed in order to “save the planet.,” i.e. to destroy more of the environment than the proposed solution can salvage.

We can also see the same thing when it comes to Wildlife Management. As part of the “Environmental Movement,” which saw its foundation in the 1970s, it was determined that the American Society needed to “change the way we talked about wildlife management.” What this actually meant was that it became the agenda of Environmentalism to systematically destroy the existing tried and true model of wildlife management and replace it with something far more destructive. In order to be able to successfully carry this out, Environmentalism had to falsely promote another narrative rooted in dogma contrary to what was a highly successful and working model of management.

Environmentalism recognized the emotional power and destruction that exists within a society, spoon fed perverse nonsense about animals, their rights, and the need to protect all animals at any cost. The idea that game animals are considered a renewable resource, has been auspiciously deleted from “the way we talk about wildlife management.” As such, large predators have conveniently become a tool of destruction, not only among a designed society of emotionalists and “near-illiterates,” but the annihilation/extirpation of a species, and perhaps at an even greater demise in a complete makeover of the “ecosystems” so many have come to believe in.

Which history of the existence of flora and fauna that “near-illiterates” choose to accept, matters little in the grand scheme of things. If one wants to believe that wolves (or any and all large predators) existed in abundance and their habitats encompassed the entire North American Continent, doesn’t take into consideration that things have drastically changed that have brought us to the present time where it is impossible for both man and predator beasts to coexist in close proximity.

Whether we like it or not, the population growth of people has swallowed up a good chunk of habitat that once was home to these animals. Environmentalists somehow want to create a model of wildlife management that excludes the existence of man. I’m not sure how that is possible unless there exist deliberate plans to seriously reduce the population of mankind.

It appears our post-normal society, the “near-illiterates,” have an answer to this problem; that we should force large predators onto the landscape and to hell with the result.

Not only are we witnessing the return of the conflicts between man and beast that caused the drastic reduction in populations of large predators when settlers moved West, another unplanned catastrophe is upon the landscape.

Attempting to force large predators, including wolves, onto man-settled landscapes, not only causes public safety conflicts, livestock destruction, and the potential for the spread of unwanted diseases to man and livestock, it is a formula for the destruction of the wolf/coyote species.

Wolves, coyotes, your pet dog, jackals, hyenas, etc. are capable of interbreeding and delivering a viable offspring – meaning an offspring capable of reproducing. The wild animals are intended to exist in the wild. Wild is not in everyones’ backyard. When wild canines are forced to expand, through over-protection, this pressures the animals onto man-settled landscapes, which, in return, causes myriad conflicts.

The “near-illiterates” are failing to comprehend that this forced existence is destroying the “pure” wolf/coyote. When wild canines interbreed with domestic canines, the hybrid outcome becomes a different animal with characteristics, both physical and behavioral, that not only changes the animal into a breed that should be not wanted in the wild, but along with this change, the resulting “Trophic Cascade” has the potential to change the entire make-up of an ecosystem.

The question then becomes do we protect the real wolf and the real coyote or do we simply protect a population of wild dogs? With several countries around the globe faced with finding ways to destroy the thousands of feral dogs, in time, the United States can expect to do the same unless something better isn’t done to protect these large predators in a more feasible and responsible way.

Large predators, like the wolf and coyote, belong in the wilderness where they can be wild canines. Forcing, through over-protection, the hybridization of these animals is much like destroying the environment to erect windmills thought to be the answer to save the environment.

It has become quite clear that the goal here is not the protection of a “pure” wolf or a “pure” coyote, but rather several other sinister agendas at work. First, would be the planned perverse love-affair our society has for any animal…well, only the ones they choose that fits their lifestyle. Second, is the planned hatred that has been constructed against hunting and trapping – events that control our animal populations. Third, is the programmed destruction of rural life, i.e. ranching, which includes the elimination of a valuable and needed food source that comes from ranching. This is part of the plan to rid the planet of useless eaters, or in this case “near-illiterates,” in order to save and protect the resources for the Global Power Structure.

On the surface, some can only see the nonsense about how too many wild dogs and too many tame dogs are going to cause a destruction of a species. Few can see the bigger picture. Ignorant, True Believers, under the guise of predator protection, are carrying out the plans for their own destruction and they cannot see it.

They can’t even see their promotion of predators is actually destroying them. How do you fix that?

Share