June 16, 2021

What Really Happened On 8-21-17-?

I don’t believe any man rightly knows.. My five senses seemed to tell me that something came to be in front of the sun.. The light went from normal to dimmed back to normal.. The temperature dropped twenty degrees.. Their were weird shadows on the ground.. Animals behaved normal as if the night was approaching then resumed their normal daily routines as the short night ended.. NASA say’s the Moon eclipsed the Sun. And they have almost all mankind believing them. I doubt it.. Some men have said their is a black sun involved.. Saturn perhaps Mars.. I doubt it.. I’ve heard there is dark moons along with the known lighted moon.. I doubt it.. When YHWH and Yeshuah tells us what these things were, if they ever do, then we will know what these things were.. Men are not wise and are fools..
eclipse (v.) Look up eclipse at Dictionary.com
late 13c., “to cause an eclipse of,” from Old French eclipser, from eclipse (see eclipse (n.)).Figurative use from 1570s. Also in Middle English in an intransitive sense “to suffer an eclipse,” now obsolete. Related: Eclipsed; eclipsing.
eclipse (n.) Look up eclipse at Dictionary.com
c. 1300, from Old French eclipse “eclipse, darkness” (12c.), from Latin eclipsis, from Greek ekleipsis “an eclipse; an abandonment,” literally “a failing, forsaking,” from ekleipein “to forsake a usual place, fail to appear, be eclipsed,” from ek “out” (see ex-) + leipein “to leave” (from PIE root *leikw- “to leave”).
ecliptic (n.) Look up ecliptic at Dictionary.com
“the circle in the sky followed by the Sun,” late 14c., from Medieval Latin ecliptica, from Late Latin (linea) ecliptica, from Greek ekliptikos “of an eclipse” (see eclipse (n.)). So called because eclipses happen only when the Moon is near the line. Related: Ecliptical.
ec- Look up ec- at Dictionary.com
typical form before consonants of Latin ex- or Greek ex-/ek- (see ex-), as in eclipse, ecstasy).
annular (adj.) Look up annular at Dictionary.com
“ring-shaped,” 1570s, from French annulaire (16c.) or directly from Medieval Latin annularis “pertaining to a ring,” from annulus, misspelled diminutive of Latin anus “ring” (see anus). An annular eclipse (1727) is one in which the dark body of the moon is smaller than the disk of the sun, so that at the height of it the sun, due to the moon’s remoteness from Earth, appears as a ring of light. Related: Annularity.
*leikw- Look up *leikw- at Dictionary.com
Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to leave.”

It forms all or part of: delinquent; derelict; eclipse; eleven; ellipse; ellipsis; elliptic; lipo- (2) “lacking;” lipogram; loan; paralipsis; relic; relict; reliction; relinquish; reliquiae; twelve.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit reknas “inheritance, wealth,” rinakti “leaves;” Greek leipein “to leave, be lacking;” Latin linquere “to leave;” Gothic leihvan, Old English lænan “to lend;” Old High German lihan “to borrow;” Old Norse lan “loan.”

totality (n.) Look up totality at Dictionary.com
1590s, from total (adj.) + -ity, or from or based on Middle French totalité, Medieval Latin totalitas. In the eclipse sense, “time of total obscuration,” from 1842.
penumbra (n.) Look up penumbra at Dictionary.com
1660s, from Modern Latin penumbra “partial shadow outside the complete shadow of an eclipse,” coined 1604 by Kepler from Latin pæne “almost” (see penitence) + umbra “shadow” (see umbrage). Related: Penumbral.
umbra (n.) Look up umbra at Dictionary.com
1590s, “phantom, ghost,” a figurative use from Latin umbra “shade, shadow” (see umbrage). Astronomical sense of “shadow cast by the earth or moon during an eclipse” is first recorded 1670s. Meaning “an uninvited guest accompanying an invited one” is from 1690s in English, from a secondary sense among the Romans. Related: Umbral.
helium (n.) Look up helium at Dictionary.com
1868, coined from Greek helios “sun” (from PIE root *sawel- “the sun”), because the element was detected in the solar spectrum during the eclipse of Aug. 18, 1868, by English astronomer Sir Joseph N. Lockyer (1836-1920) and English chemist Sir Edward Frankland (1825-1899). It was not actually obtained until 1895; before then it was assumed to be an alkali metal, hence the ending in -ium.
murk (n) Look up murk at Dictionary.com
c. 1300, myrke, from Old Norse myrkr “darkness,” from Proto-Germanic *merkwjo- (source also of Old English mirce “murky, black, dark; murkiness, darkness,” Danish m?rk “darkness,” Old Saxon mirki “dark”); cognate with Old Church Slavonic mraku, Serbo-Croatian mrak, Russian mrak “darkness;” Lithuanian merkti “shut the eyes, blink,” from PIE *mer- “to flicker” (see morn). Murk Monday was long the name in Scotland for the great solar eclipse of March 29, 1652 (April 8, New Style).
intramercurial (adj.) Look up intramercurial at Dictionary.com
“being within the orbit of the planet Mercury,” 1859, especially in reference to a supposed planet orbiting there (sought in vain in the eclipse of 1860), from intra- “within, inside” + Mercury (Latin Mercurius) + -al (1). The idea originated in France in the 1840s with Urbain Le Verrier, who later became director of the Paris Observatory. There was some excitement about it in 1859 when a French doctor named Lescarbault claimed to have tracked it crossing the Sun’s disk and convinced Le Verrier. It was sought in vain in the solar eclipses of 1860, ’68, and ’69. See Vulcan.

Ecclesiastes 8-17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

Ecclesiastes 3-11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

3-14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Mathew 11 /21 – 30 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Though he labor Adam (the natural man) cannot find out the works of God. He can ascertain certain knowable facts that are clearly seen and can be proven but that shall be the extent of his understanding. It is good and right to understand these things but God has set a limit to his ability. The natural has been hidden just as the gospel has been hidden to the wise and prudent. The child of grace has been given the mind of Christ in the new birth in the incorruptible seed and He knows all things but not according to the flesh. The gospel declaration is they shall call His name Jesus and He SHALL save HIS PEOPLE from their sins and as Hebrews says all His works were finished before the foundation of the world. Labor to enter into His rest which is the finished work of Christ. He is the righteousness of His sheep and they hear his voice and follow Him and will not follow another and know man can pluck them from His hand of out of the fathers hand. All who have been given faith to trust solely in the work of Christ and not their own filthy works have peace with God and the mystery of Godliness is theirs.

If you wish to believe the say so of unwise fools so be it..

Share

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

Parasites “A Major Threat to Moose” But Leads “Occasionally to Death.” HUH?

Perhaps Cornell University is at it again. The last time I recall the antics of Cornell University, was when they, in their attempt to do something about the overrunning deer population on campus, decided to conduct some “tubal ligations” on some of the female population of deer.

When a university, or any other organization, is wallowing in liberal idiocy, stupid things happen to stupid people. What the brilliant wildlife department at the university failed to understand, in their blindness, was that tubal ligations on female deer only caused those female deer to go into estrus and remain in estrus until they had successfully mated. Now, without the ability to successfully mate…The result? Every buck within a hundred miles descended on Cornell looking for action.

And now, the $34,000.00 a year tuition at Cornell, has students who are conducting tests, and what they call research, to see what are killing the Adirondack moose. They say moose eating snails is how they contract “brain worm,” which ends up killing the moose. However, in one paragraph, the university writes: “…surveys in 2016 on 11 live moose and 22 necropsies and concluded parasites are a major threat to the moose population.” (Emboldening added by editor)

This if followed almost immediately by this: “Foraging moose then ingest infected snails, culminating in a diseased brain and spinal cord, and occasionally death.”(emboldening added by editor)

I may be wrong, but from my perspective, if I was going to state that parasites, from eating snails, are a major threat to the moose population, then it must be that death, and/or failure to reproduce, is at a level high enough the recruitment of new moose calves is lower than total mortality of the adult moose population.

If that is true, then how can the results of foraging moose, eating snails, lead to “occasional death?”

Maybe they should try some tubal ligations.

Understand that by reading Cornell’s own words, they are clueless as to whether moose are eating snails and if so, if it is killing the moose. “Our results show that moose foraging in areas with high soil moisture may likely encounter higher densities of gastropods – snails and slugs – which likely increases the risk of parasitic threats from deer brain worm if the snails are eaten.” (Emboldening added by editor)

I suppose it is just as LIKELY that moose MIGHT eat a truck full of cannabis a LIKELY die!

Here’s one more observation. The student researchers (give em a break, right? So they can graduate and fill our wildlife manager departments with more progressive, brainwashed, environmentalist, idiots.) said they are looking into wet and “water areas” where they think, perhaps they will find these parasitic-laden snails. One area of interest to them is described this way: “Since moose make use of water areas and eat in wet, dense pine forests, they’re susceptible to a large presence of gastropods …”

I grew up in Maine and lived the majority of my adult life here. Maine is the Pine Tree State. Pine forests are everywhere and for some strange reason, the people of Maine decided to call Maine the Pine Tree State. Maine also has moose…more than any other state in the lower contiguous states. I’m going to go out and search for moose eating in “wet, dense pine forests.” And all this time, I thought pine trees, like the hundreds of thousands I have on my small acreage, thrived in dry, sandy places.

I just can’t believe my own eyes!

Maybe I should try some tubal ligations.

Share

The Escalation Of Wolf Pimp Propaganda

“The Profanity Peak Pack: Set Up & Sold Out

http://www.predatordefense.org/profanity/

There’s no business like bullshit.

That statement can be taken as a quip based on the well known song about show business, or one can consider that this is really true, that this is the way that the world really works.

In Harry G Franfurt’s book, ON BULLSHIT, he shows how prevalent bullshit is, and shows that it is more than simply lying. What it is today is institutionalized as PR, specifically that termed as “spin”, the “scientific” application of ‘psychology’ to persuasion.

At their best, universities should protect academic freedom even when academiacs are obviously lying…

The anti management of large carnivores movement is based upon a totally a mythical concept, a jejune concept, one that these Disney tards needs to find the maturity to grow out of. The unquestioning acceptance of this myth, one saturated with pseudo scientific internal contradictions, is that which defines the ‘Wolf Pimp Zombie’ chanting around their GOLDEN WOLF as their ALTER… Kubrick must have written their script…The latest Disneyesque culture in the pathological society using their technocratic gadgets, is merely another culture of the scum grown in a social engineers petrie dish…

The Distinction Between ‘Knowing’ and ‘Believing’:
Here is the etymology of the word “Belief”: In Sanskrit, Bala=explain, describe, force, against one’s will, without being able to help or change things, militarily, troops, young, childish, infantile, not full-grown or developed, newly, rising early, ignorant, simple, foolish, fit for sacrifice, child, fool, simpleton, or any immature living creature.
Eva means earth, world, conduct, habit, usage, custom. We derived the word Eve from the Sanskrit Eva.
Eve, the wife of Adam, introduced Adam to the religion of sin and degradation. Bel + Eva = Baleva (Belief; Believe).
Belligerent. Bellum, Rebel, Rebellious, etc…

 

Share

War On Bad Science? Or Is It A War on Preferred Bad Science?

Arnold says that now, unless he trusts a researcher’s work, he no longer believes the findings of any scientific study until he or someone on the staff carefully vets the paper. “A new study shows …” are “the four most dangerous words,” Arnold wrote on Twitter.

Together with Taubes’ work, Arnold was also reading Ioannidis’ and Gold­acre’s equally devastating analyses. These critiques of science amounted to a deep philosophical quandary for the Arnolds, philanthropists who had dedicated their lives to a data-based approach to giving. “In everything they do, they want to be evidence-driven,” says Stuart Buck, vice president of research integrity at the Arnold Foundation. But if you look at the studies that can’t be reproduced and other issues facing science, “you start to think: What is evidence? What do we actually know?”

The Arnolds had already decided that, with decades of life ahead of them and almost unlimited resources, they had the time and money to evaluate charitable programs properly, even when that meant paying for expensive randomized controlled trials that could take years to complete. But now they were widening their scope. If they wanted to embark on truly “transformational change,” as their foundation literature states, it wouldn’t be enough to properly evaluate this or that education or criminal justice program. They would also have to take on a far more ambitious project: The Arnolds would have to try and fix science itself.<<<Read More>>>

Share

VooDoo Science, Social Demands and Lyme Disease Drive Any-Deer Permit Allocations

So, let me get this straight! According to John Holyoke’s report in the Bangor Daily News, the excuses the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) give for increasing the allotment of “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) to over 66,000 is because of 10 consecutive years of mild winters. I can say they were mild for me because I was in Florida, but record breaking snowfall evidently doesn’t account for any part of the Winter Severity Index.

We hear also that most of those ADPs are being handed out in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) in Central and Southern Maine where populations of deer are the highest, and yet ADPs are being issued in zones where there haven’t been any for a few years and where record deep snowfalls occurred.

And if that isn’t enough to start your blood boiling just a tad, read what Lee Kantar, acting deer biologist(?) said (because the former deer biologist quit and moved on): “Kantar said that as the DIF&W continues to work on its next generation of long-range management plans, a subtle shift is emerging. In past years, it was common for biologists to issue population estimates for various big game animals. When asked for a statewide estimate on deer, Kantar said biologists are focusing more on the health of the population than sheer numbers.

“We’re not abandoning the thought of ‘How many critters are there out there?’ but the means for us doing that, we do as part of monitoring health, as well,” Kantar said.”

This “subtle shift” is a convenient new tool that is part of a continued reduction in accountability for wildlife managers. The ONLY way a biologist can honestly determine how many ADPs to issue to meet population goals is to know how many deer are within a WMD. To somehow approach things from the perspective of “I think the herd is healthy in WMD 27, therefore I will increase ADPs,” is a step backwards of about 40 years.

Now, it appears, the convenient excuse will be that managers don’t really have a handle on deer populations and will, with the onset of a new Romance Biological deer management plan, sense the condition of the herd and make excuses from there. In case you hadn’t figured it out yet, this is right in line with the convenience of Climate Change (CC = 33). With Climate Change and managing deer for “health” is there really any reason Maine needs any wildlife biologists?

The third excuse of convenience is now emerging where the issuance of 66,000-plus ADPs is Lyme Disease. Deer are carriers of ticks that spread Lyme disease. With the perpetual effort to scare the living hell out of people over Lyme disease, social pressures will demand that MDIFW kill more deer. Historically when those demands are made, the deer get killed and licensed sportsmen are not allowed to do the job and residents are not allowed to benefit from the resource. Also, understand that where Lyme disease is said to be most prevalent is in areas where land is heavily posted to prevent access for hunting those deer. As with any Totalitarian society, the problem is created by the totalitarians who in turn demand that government solve their problems. And we know what kind of job government does at anything they do.

Maine residents and sportsmen should look of a “subtle shift,” or maybe not so subtle shift, toward a new movement of Romance Biology and Voodoo Science to guide the wildlife managers to wallow in their own brilliance of disease creation and scarcity because they are fully engaged in the effort to “change the way we look at and discuss wildlife management.”

Share

Eight Days A Week

Share

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share

Making It Up As You Go Along

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

Share

The Great Priests Of Scientism Have Their Double Speak Say

Share