December 7, 2019

Maine: Abundant Deer is a Relative Term…Isn’t It?

In Maine, we are being falsely told on a regular basis that the deer herd is healthy and growing. Is it? Isn’t that perception simply a relative term based upon recent history and not long-term history?

Today, I was grumbling as soon as I arose this morning, long before daylight, about the snow and the cold. And then after a cool start of 8 degrees, and a “feel like” well below zero with stiff, northwest winds, it warmed up to a balmy 17 degrees with winds backing off a bit. Gee, I thought. It’s not really that cold.

But then it dawned on me that simply observing today’s temps and winds, any warming seems relatively good compared to sub-zero temperatures and winds.

We are subjected to the same reality when it comes to our deer herd, the harvest, and the propaganda handed out by those seemingly interested mostly in protecting their retirement pensions.

Where once a deer harvest of 40,000 was the past normal, anything these days over 20,000 is presented as a big management success and if the harvest approaches 30,000 cigars are handed out, big slaps on the back and thank god for Global Warming…or something. Didn’t I do good?

With a couple of recent deer harvests below 20,000, like below zero temps, when the harvest ticks up, we simply convince ourselves (along with some prodding from propagandists) that it ain’t that bad.

I also got to thinking and shared some thoughts I had about how technology has influenced the modern deer harvest. My friend sent me some information showing that I’m not the only one with evil thoughts about such things.

In response to an Internet posting about a 40,000-deer harvest in 1956, I saw where one reader posted a response about how many technological gadgets are used today to hunt with or assist us in our hunting. I was prompted, before even reading this, to ask what would the deer harvest be like if we hunted the “old fashioned” way by going into the woods and “hunting” for deer rather that baiting the deer to come to us and all the other gadgetry that makes killing a deer that much easier.

Is there any real statistics on this phenomenon? Speak up please!

Consider a list of help aides: cell phones, radios, gps, scents, scent blockers, game cameras, ATVs, hi-tech clothing (stay dry and warm longer), food plots, quick-up tree stands, swivel seats, heated tree stands, pop-up ground blinds (also heated), game calls…can you add to this list? Speak up please!

Oh, wait! Here’s one I saw just the other day. A new gadget that you put on like earphone headsets. Technology lets you drown out unwanted noises and enhance things like deer walking in the leaves, etc. What next?

With the onset of every technological gadget, the fish and game department has to figure out whether to allow this advantage and to adjust seasons and sex of deer takes, to compensate for this advantage. All Maine has as tools to compensate is to adjust the length of season and the issuance of “Any-Deer Permits,” both of which appear to become more political with each passing season.

Has or does anybody consider that all these hi-tech gadgetries might leave the not so financially fortunate at a great disadvantage? I didn’t think so.

If you can afford an ATV, think of the places you can access to find deer. Game cameras can tell you where and when to sit in ambush. I can’t afford either. With a heated ground blind, you could sit and wait all day…and night.

What was once a “primitive” hunting season for deer, has turned into “inline” muzzle loaders, complete with speed loaders and all the stuff to make a primitive hunt not so primitive. Some of us still hunt with a single-shot rifle. What’s the difference? If we choose NOT to buy the extra muzzleloader license, is my rifle season being cut short to attend to the needs (political) of the not-so-primitive muzzleloader hunters? Or maybe I can’t afford all that is needed to be a modern, primitive hunter. Money rules…as always.

Everything becomes relative. Those who are prone to forget (the majority) are ignorantly willing to accept that a 20,000-deer harvest is good/normal, any number higher than that prompts kudos throughout the politically motivated, environmentally-trained, biologists and managers offices.

Media is compliant to echo the propaganda that originates in the department that must look good to keep their jobs. All will use any excuse to make things look better than they are…like issuing a record number of Any-Deer Permits to bump up the harvest…wink-wink.

Speaking of the media, recently I read a report that one deer processing facility in Sabbattus was overrun with deer to process such that they had to tell people to call before bringing in their deer for processing. Of course there was no honest explanation leaving readers to believe there are tons of deer and EVERYONE is taking one…or more…legally of course.

WOW! Modern, marvelous deer management. Look what their global warming has accomplished.

However, you don’t have to be a statistics guru to understand that there just aren’t very many places to go get your deer processed.

While I was at hunting camp last week, our discussion concluded that of the 6 of us at camp, nobody knew where the nearest place was.

I wonder if anyone ever thought that these places are going out of business because a 20,000 harvest isn’t as sustainable to a deer processing business as 40,000 used to be? My old math tells me that’s some where around twice…or half, depending on how you see it.

NAW!!! I didn’t think you’d think that way.

After all, it’s all relative. I’m happy. It’s not that cold out either.

Share

There’s More to Recruiting Hunters Than Sticking Them in a Blind and Parading Deer By Them to Shoot

When Judy Camuso was nominated to serve at the position of the head of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), in her testimony before the Joint Standing Committee for fish and wildlife, she pointed out that as part of her plan to grow more hunters and fisherman, she intended to become involved in a nationwide recruitment program, R3. She stated that her plan, “…will include measurable goals for recruiting, retaining and reactivating hunters and anglers but it will build relationships with non-consumptive users as well.” 

In a critique of Commissioner Camuso’s ambitious programs as commissioner, I questioned her intent to bring together consumptive and non consumptive users, while at the same time believing the two can work productively toward the same goals that satisfy both sides AND recruit new hunters and fishermen.

Today I was reading a Press Herald story about the MDIFW’s efforts at “recruiting” new hunters by allowing 9 hunters to be guided (spoon fed) on a deer “hunt” on the state-owned Swan’s Island.

I commend the commissioner and the MDIFW at making a swipe at recruitment. However, I am left with lots of questions about the event, the methods and within the article some comments and information that was given that was perhaps incomplete, leaving readers with a misguided understanding of the whys and wherefores of hunting, retention, and recruitment (R3).

The article in reference referred to Swan Island as “the perfect classroom” stating, “The place has become a haven for deer, which congregate in fields in groups as large as 50.” It may be, by one reporter’s perspective, as the “perfect classroom” but it is representative of what deer hunting in Maine is like? Who gets to do that? What happens when these 9 people (who expressed an interest in trying again) go off on their own and perhaps can’t afford a blind or a swivel seat to go in it? (It used to be a pot and a window…but I digress.) Will they ever see that many deer again?

“IFW set up pop-up camouflage tents to serve as blinds, equipping them with special swivel chairs that let the newbies quietly pivot as they watched the woods.” Even being “coached” by Game Wardens, staff, and biologists about “hunting techniques,” I wonder if it’s being all that honest with any possible recruit to place them in a ground blind where as many as 50 deer in a group might pass by because hunting has not been allowed on Swan Island for 50 years?

The article states that the 9 novice hunter program was a success because, “…seven of the nine bagged a deer,” and, “all the participants expressed an interest in hunting again.” Not knowing the reasons all 9 applicants were interested in this hunt to begin with, one has to wonder if sitting in a cold blind for hours on end and never seeing a deer, for years on end, a “novice” would express interest in trying it again? Maybe that has something to do with fewer licenses being sold?

In an attempt to place blame for loss of hunters and failure to recruit or retain more hunters, the author brings out the “numbers” and the talking point excuses of where the blame lies: “…technology;  overscheduled lives, especially for young families; and the aging of fish and game clubs that once formed the heart of the hunting community.”

HUH?

The last time I examined data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on why license sales for hunting were on the decline, the number one excuse given for not taking to the woods to hunt, was lack of time.

It’s easy to blame technology. Anyone with two eyes can see what so-called technology and social media is doing to American Society in general. Over-scheduled lives is a poor catchall excuse. Scheduling of our lives is driven by interest not by somebody’s “technology.” If hunting was part of the talk around the kitchen table, where that heritage is discussed before, during, and after the deer hunting season, people would find the time to hunt.

There are other reasons recruitment and interest to hunt are in decline…or in what might appear to be interest in hunting. One issue was discussed in the article in question. It began by discussing Apprentice Hunter Licenses. Bragging that the Apprentice Program has been around over a decade, listen to the hoops that need to be jumped through: “That license, which costs $26 for Mainers (and $115 for non-residents), allows someone 16 years or older who has never had a valid hunting license to hunt in the presence of a “supervisor.” The supervisor must be at least 18 and have had a hunting license for the previous three years.” Money, money, money and more “educational” programs that not just a perspective hunter has to go through in hopes they might become a longtime hunter.

You’ll always ruffle up the dander on the backs of some necks when you start discussing things like the potential obstacles any hunter or perspective hunter must go through to get their feet wet in hunting, or bringing a long-time hunter from Maine or away back when they have to take valuable time to attend classes for hunter “safety” and show “proficiency” in handling a gun and shooting it. While hunter safety has certainly made the woods during the deer hunt much safer, has anyone honestly assessed as to whether the decline in participation is directly proportional to the time constraints of hunter education, license costs, and…and…and…? Maybe, hunter education has stopped the total abandonment of hunting. Does anybody know? Does anybody care?

So, whenever we allow someone to feed us “data” that shows license sales and all the rigged demographics that go with them, nowhere is it ever discussed as to how hunter recruitment, retention, and re-interest is influenced by lousy hunting. Years spent afield with seldom, if ever, even spotting a deer probably plays as big a deterrent as anything, including technology and over-scheduled lives – time and money for what?

Just a quick glimpse into the past and it doesn’t take a statistics guru to figure out that as the deer harvest is trending down, down, and down (yes, with a couple false spikes upward) deer hunting license sales are also trending down, down, and down. Is it that we are not supposed to talk about such things? Is this why 9 novice hunters (out of 20 applicants) were placed in a blind on a small island that hasn’t been hunted for 50 years and deer sometimes will, literally, run you over? What’s wrong with bringing them to where my blind is? Where I haven’t seen a deer in years? I’m trying to remember when the last time I was able to sit in a blind – with a “special swivel seat” (wink-wink) where as many as 50 deer to a bunch passed by. Forget it. It NEVER happens in the real world. So, is MDIFW hoodwinking perspective hunters? How often will MDIFW continue to offer these free lunches to those who say they might be interested in deer hunting? Until the deer on Swan Island are all gone? Will potential recruits have to buy a license, and buy an “Any-Deer Permit,” like the rest of us do, when deer numbers on the island dwindle, like everywhere else in the state?

I’m not sure I know any real Maine hunters who don’t think it would be a great idea to recruit more hunters. I don’t know of any real Maine hunters who don’t think that if there were more deer perhaps the three “Rs” would take care of themselves. But what do I know?

I’m just a grumpy Ole Maine Hunter.

Share

Lost The Connection

All I have to say is, read read read.. To understand the disconnect.. Double Speak.. World Wide Eugenics.. A strategy of depopulation. The design of which began as early as the late 1800s.. Brazenly released in this tome of 1995.. To many will never comprehend it.. Sustainable Development is in fact eugenics. A reorganized economic model designed to only support reset population objectives for the human species.. Cleverly implemented into all U.N. Nation States.. Intentional mismanagement of resources..

Share

Maine’s Bear Hunt Falls Short of Harvest “Hope and Change”

Understanding that the Maine black bear hunting season is not yet over and what is left generally produces very little increase in the the total harvest, it appears that the black bear harvest will fall far short of hoped-for numbers.

According to the live harvest data on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) web page, the current black bear harvest stands at 2,241, nearly 1,100 short of last years total bear harvest. Compared with the last 5 years, it appears this year’s take will come up well short of that average.

Yes, the blame will be placed on the reality that there was abundant natural food for the bears and history seems to have taught us that because baiting of bears is the most successful way to take them, when there is abundant natural food, bears aren’t so much interested in a bait pile.

Okay, so we get that. Isn’t this another thing that, as game managers, we have no control over? And because we have no control over certain things, isn’t it responsible to take better and different actions that would better guarantee that a bear harvest would meet harvest goals as part of a responsible management program?

One might think.

But, the MDIFW and the Maine Legislature have failed, once again, to take any meaningful and responsible action to make sure that the bear harvest meets goals necessary to keep the population in check so as not to continue to increase public safety issues as well as the impact bears are having on the dwindling deer population (even though managers are telling us there are plenty of deer) in parts of the state where the bear population is very healthy numbers wise. There is a correlation…isn’t there?

The Maine Legislature either would not pass or postponed any action to address the burgeoning bear population. As I asked earlier, is the Maine Legislature liable for damages, injuries, and death caused by an irresponsibly grown population of black bears? Is the MDIFW liable because they refuse to buck the outfitters and guides in the state who refuse to work with the state in reasonable ways and responsibleness to bring the bear population in check?

I walk down the street. I see a hole. I fall in it………..

Share

It’s Hard To Believe But The Eyes See True

I did ten miles in the Frank Church a few days ago.. Where the trails I walked since the 70-80s-90s were elk and deer highways. Later on in the late 90s- to 2007-08 those same trails became wolf highways.

Now, the last few years, 2010-2019 those trails are nothing walks them highways. It’s puzzling. I met a couple from Oregon in there and they asked me, where are the elk? I said wolf. And walked on..

Now my thought is this.. IDFG has been lying about elk and deer populations. And not only that, they are lying about wolf population as well.

I think they’re lying about the harvest report data for those three species.. I don’t think IDFG nor the Federal government, USFWS, wants us to know the truth.. Those agencies combined wildlife management has become a tragedy here in Idaho.

Another tragedy is taking place as of yesterday, 10-15-19. IDFG let out 5,000 elk tags for the combined units of 43-44-48-49-50.. They will likely claim 500 elk harvested.

Fortunately, as I was in hunt unit 43-44 yesterday for the day.. The empty camp grounds and THs might possibly mean that IDFGs lies are catching up to them.. The back country has been sterile of wildlife for years. The rural areas private lands are holding some elk..

I did not hear a single shot fired in unit 43. I have not seen magpies nor crows back there in years.. No bear scat, no wolf tracks, coyotes, wolverines, cougars..

It’s hard to believe the obvious mismanagement of wildlife..

I expect the trespassing citations are about to boom.. Because the land holders don’t want elk hunters on their land..

Things have seriously devolved here in Idaho concerning wildlife since 1995.. It’s a tragedy..

Share

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

Maine Moose and Ticks: Continued Spread of Bad Information

I once thought perhaps there was some hope that Maine wildlife officials were starting to get it when it comes to what is causing the moose population to shrink. But evidently Climate Change remains the excuse for everything incompetent.

Yes, few will argue that winter ticks are killing Maine’s moose. However, none can rid their brainwashing that the cause of the vast number of blood sucking ticks is due to Climate Change – proof of professional ignorance. When you combine this kind of blind ignorance with the need for the media to perpetuate nonsense about Climate Change, there still remains absolutely no hope that one day man will get it and then make plans to combat the problem from a real scientific approach rather than an emotional wandering about hoping on all hope that Climate Change will somehow make things right again.

Once again we read in the mainstream media how we are all gonna die because of Climate Change. Maine’s moose biologist is quoted as saying, “Every day that is mild in October and November and we don’t get any snow, every day ticks are out getting on moose. Climate is a factor in the level of ticks we have out there.”

It wasn’t all that long ago that Kantar (Maine’s moose biologist) was caught telling some people that the reason for so many ticks was due to too many moose, and not so much because of Climate Change.

Maybe there’s more funding available if you are willing to perpetuate the Climate Change nonsense.

Ignorance and brainwashing about Climate Change causes one to never use their brain and implement any sort of common sense. It’s more fun, evidently, to plow along with the myth, living in fear that WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE! Thirty years ago it was predicted that whole nations would disappear from the earth if we didn’t do something about global warming. And yet, we still insist that global warming (now Climate Change) is what is causing winter ticks to grow out of control. Smart…real smart.

If Maine would increase their moose hunting permits and lower the moose population to responsible levels, the winter tick problem would go away. I thought Maine’s moose biologists had begun to figure this out. But now they are back to blaming Climate Change on the number of ticks.

In Alaska, were moose have lived for far longer than in Maine, biologists/scientists there have said that there is only one way to mitigate the winter tick problem: reduce the moose population.

It’s easier to spout nonsense and say Alaska doesn’t have a tick problem because it is so cold up there. Ignorance also causes people to think all of Alaska is much colder than Maine. It’s not, and these are areas where the moose thrive. Let’s take a closer look.

The winter tick is not just a common occurring thing in Maine. This tick, Dermacentor albipictus, if found in warm, dry climates like Texas, and cold climates like Alaska and the Yukon. We know that the ticks are found in the Yukon because researchers deliberately took these winter ticks there just to experiment with them to see if they could survive. The ticks survived and the irresponsible, perhaps criminal scientists were allowed to continue practicing their witchcraft.

Perhaps this is just too complicated for some to understand. Try this simple math problem. Alaska has an estimated 200,000 moose. Maine has 70,000. (Note: I use these numbers because the biologists use these numbers. There’s little reason to believe that these numbers are all that accurate.)

Alaska has 663,300 square miles of land. Maine has 35,385. Alaska has nearly 3 times the number of moose than Maine living on 20 times the amount of forests. Alaska doesn’t have a tick problem. Maine does. From this information, people conclude that the problem with ticks is Climate Change. Does this make any sense?

Share

The Psychology/Philosophy of Social Engineering is Always Based Upon Deception

There is one way to save collapsing ecosystems and stop climate change.. Depopulate 90% of the indirect and direct drivers causing it.. Depopulation of people. See the 1140 page UNEP tome. REWILDING. is also a new economy connected to the entire new economic model of the tome. Not much to eat in the forests anymore. They’re chasing the grazers off.. Just look at the overall history of eliminating grazing, current grazing is a shadow of what it once was. Wolves and forest fires have eliminated more wildlife than any other method. It’s perfect really, a perfect attack against a society so distracted, so dumbed down they’re actually advocating for their own demise, legislative implementation of depopulation measures against their own species.

The University, the legislatures, the REWILDING AGENDA via a process known as social media is essentially a weapon.. Social Media is a fantastic tool for committing Social Experiments and driving public thought toward Social Change, or the illusion of Social Change by exploiting the masses emotions, by appealing to their emotions.. The intent is to “leverage[s] the power of social media” to sway people to their point of view. The mainstream and alternative media has done this since it came into existence, pushed on the appeal to emotion scheme on a public that runs strictly on emotion. I call it making bullshit believable.. before radio and TV it was the newspapers.. Pushing pseudo knowledge. Former U.S. president Lincoln spoke of this problem when he was in office..

The UNEP tome is a cleverly worded termed, crafted plan for depopulation of people, these authors would certainly orchestrate the depopulation of wildlife in that process, and they have been doing exactly that for quite some time now, while cleverly misdirecting the causes and blame.. The UNEP tome is just psychological marketing, is deceptive, is brought forth through Social Media, Social Experiments, Social Change, all based upon appeals to emotion.. Save the Earth by a cleverly disguised plan of a type of eugenics and genocide the world has never experienced before.. Thus is unrecognizable by MOST people..

Definition of Obfuscation;
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret. [ citation needed] . The word comes from Latin obfuscatio, from obfusc?re (“to darken”), from ob (“over”) and fusc?re (“to make dark”), from fuscus (“dark”).

“Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat”–Latin
“ignorance of law excuses no one”–English translation

The United Nations Environmental Polices are without a doubt a mechanism of warfare based upon deception to beguile the victims of it to advocate for their own depopulation.

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” — Sun Tzu

Additionally, it is interesting how the law of nations is the law of sovereigns, it is principally for them, and for All of those nations all of their ministers who are members of the United Nations are legislatively implementing United Nations Environmental Policies into the Law of their “Sovereign” Nations. Apparently these sovereigns cannot think for themselves anymore. Looking back at the U.N.s influence since it was formulated by the joint efforts of the Vatican, the United Kingdom, The United States via their cleverly formulated Atlantic Charter, a contract, one wonders that perhaps they never could think for themselves. Using the Law of Nations Process the United Estates was accepted into The Family of Nations, The League of Nations, The United Nations.. All cloned sovereigns. In the service of one earthly sovereign exercising a cleverly disguised Temporal authority over these alleged “sovereign” nations… Thus Goodby original thinking goodby..

The World Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat Self Delusional System… Yes there will be no excuses…

Share

Coyote Behavior: When All You Know is Farley Mowat’s Book of Mythology

Yesterday I was reading an article of utter nonsense published in a small Maine town newspaper about coyote behavior. Of course the article was all about the love of the nasty, diseased animal and the call for its protection “because it is an important necessity for a healthy ecosystem.” Unfortunately the writer appears to have gotten 100% of their education from the proven and admitted make believe of Farley Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf.

Mowat laced his book of fiction with make believe nonsense about how wolves and coyotes only eat mice and other small rodents. The author of the Maine piece tells the same fairy tale about Maine’s coyotes: “To clarify, coyotes primarily feed on mice and other rodents…” The myth if further perpetuated by stating: “While coyotes do occasionally eat fawns and sick deer…”

Coyotes are basically garbage collectors that will eat anything…and by that I mean anything. When hungry enough, they will eat mud in order to stop the hunger in their guts. But this author obviously doesn’t get around much. Coyotes in Maine are a mixed hybrid animal, a cross breeding of an invasive coyote, wolf, and domestic dog. Because of this, the wild canine in the Maine woods is not like a typical coyote. Maine’s coyotes feed on deer, yes, adult deer too, in regular fashion. To state that coyotes feed primarily on mice and other small rodents is patently false.

The purpose of the author making this statement is to claim that because coyotes eat mice, we need to protect them because mice are what carry the ticks that cause and spread Lyme disease.

There’s a problem with that scenario. If anyone does any honest and complete research on the behavior of coyotes and the results of their behavior, they would know that the meal of the Maine coyote hybrid includes such animals as foxes and other canines and felines that truly do feed on the mice that perpetuate Lyme. The more coyotes, the fewer foxes and thus, because honestly coyotes don’t primarily feed on mice and small rodents, having more coyotes results in fewer animals that do kill the mice and thus the possibility exists that the prevalence of Lyme grows.

It should also be noted that while some choose to believe that the coyote makes for a healthier ecosystem, the reality is far from healthy. It has been proven that coyotes carry as many as 50 different diseases and viruses. Maine also has detected the presence of “lung worm” in moose. Lung worm, in this case Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) is the result of the presence of wild canines. E.g. can be contracted by humans and can be deadly. Wild ungulates, such as deer and moose, pick up the disease by grazing around coyote scat where the tiny infectious spores are found. These spores are highly viable and thus the increase in the spread of the disease. In short, the more coyotes roaming the countryside, the higher the threat of disease. E.g. is not a direct killer of deer and moose (livestock also) but restricts their ability to escape large predators because of cysts that can grow on lungs and other internal organs.

The author points an accusatory finger at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for lying about its “responsible and science-based stewardship” when it comes to the management and control of coyotes. I find is amazing that simply because a person does not agree with the “responsible and science-based stewardship” of the MDIFW (in other words the department may not be all in with complete animal protection and natural wildlife management), they are labeled irresponsible and that their practices aren’t science-based. In fact, regardless of the fact that MDIFW spends far too much time trying to appease the social demands of lunatics who think coyotes will stop Lyme disease, the department’s efforts in selective coyote control and the allowing of coyote hunting derbies, while perhaps not a favorite tool for this necessary control, it is something that must be done in order to be “responsible and science-based” in the care and management of other wildlife species.

No matter how much anyone wants to read and believe Farley Mowat’s nonsense, it doesn’t change reality. Nature does not regulate itself in the Nirvanic way the uninformed want to believe. The author states that if we would leave the coyote along it would regulate itself. Obviously, the author has never seen the predator pits of death, destruction, and scarcity that predator protection causes.

If we want to enjoy the wildlife and its abundance, real responsible and science-based management and control is necessary.

Share