September 28, 2023

Hypocritical Ignorance and Public Lands

December 22, 2019 by Leave a Comment

Lands supposedly bought and paid for with the money extorted from the public taxpayer, offering tribute in order to avoid imprisonment from the king and his men, we have been led to believe that when such actions happen, the lands should be widely left open and accessible to all those wishing to enjoy it. That is, after all, how socialism works?

Recently, the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), wrote a column in a Maine newspaper explaining, in his opinion, that should the Maine Legislature, being strong-armed by environmentalists and animal rights groups to limit use and access to public lands by hunting, fishing, and trapping, could result in a reduction in support for the Land for Maine’s Future program designed to protect lands for everyone to enjoy.

While an honest and not necessarily bright person can understand that any leader of a special interest group would go to bat to protect the interests of those they might represent, in this case members of SAM, nowhere in the executive director’s article did I read that SAM intended to fight against environmentalists and animal rights groups who want to limit hunters, trappers, and fishermen, in order to limit use and access to any and all others.

As Maine has come to expect, such actions are typically followed by ignorant and hypocritical screeds by members of the environmental and animal rights groups.

In one such invective, we read how it is the hunters, trappers, and fishermen who are putting the Land for Maine’s Future in jeopardy because SAM wants to protect access and use to the same degree as all other extorted taxpayers. This isn’t the case in this rebuttal.

The author, who most of Maine realizes hates hunters, trappers, and fishermen and devotes much of his time to destroy any and all of that strong and important heritage, all in the name of promoting his agendas at the cost of limiting any and all others. This it totalitarian in nature and exemplifies the foundation of Environmentalism and Animal Rights.

The author writes: “Why should the people of Maine be forced to subsidize and accept life-endangering private activities that many do not approve of in order to preserve the land for the public?”

Perhaps this should be answered with another question. Why should the people of Maine be forced to subsidize and accept the agenda’s of those who want to limit use and access to public lands for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting their special interest agendas?

Taxpayers need to decide which approach is better: to leave public land open for all, or allow the richest, big-mouthed special interest groups to demand and get exclusive and/or limited access?

In general, most who participate in hunting, fishing, and trapping, particularly on public lands, do not have hidden or open agendas geared at stopping or limiting the activities of others and/or their special interest groups. Quite the contrary. Simply seeking to protect sportsman’s access to public land, fails the straight-face test of honesty when attempting to make SAM out to be exclusive users of public lands.

The author also asks: “Why should those who want to sell their land to the state for wildlife protection purposes be prohibited from doing so?” They shouldn’t and aren’t. If any landowners are considering gifting or selling land to The Land for Maine’s Future program, they should have understanding as to how the program works, as has been designed and amended by the voters of the state. If the land owner finds these designs unacceptable, there are other options available to any land owner that would like to lock up their land and exclude any and all special interest groups…including environmental and animal rights groups or hunting, trapping, and fishing.

In their own ignorance, many want to extol the benefits of living in what they believe is a democratic society, until such time as such democracy flies up their face. The system, as crooked as it is, is available for anyone to exploit and convince the voters to support their special interest. When that system won’t work for the totalitarian, their only other recourse is to turn to the media seeking publication of their hypocritical ignorance.

Proverbs 17:28 KJV – “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”

Share
Filed Under: Maine Hunting News, Maine Outdoor News Tagged With: , ,

Animal Rights: Bunkum and Balderdash

December 28, 2017 by Leave a Comment

Some people simply do not like hunting and trapping or the idea that other people do. Perhaps it’s time to get a life and get over it. There are many things in life that all of us don’t like, but does that mean we spend our time forcing our own idealism onto others? Evidently, that is true in some cases.

I have no issues with another who is opposed to hunting and trapping. I don’t try to get them to change their life over it. I only expect the same respect in return. Did I say respect? Pfffft!

What I do have an issue with is when ignorant and severely misguided excuses are given to defend one’s position on the dislike of the activity. Given the direction the American Society has taken in recent years, there is no guilt association with lying nor is there any need to present honest facts. This practice has become null and void and runs rampant throughout.

Recently two Letters to the Editor in Maine newspapers came from obvious despisers of hunting and trapping. As they go hand in hand, it is safe to say that these same people have a perverse perspective of the roles animals, both wild and domestic, play in man’s existence.

The first letter I’d like to address comes from someone who wants to stop the use of bait as a tool to harvest black bears. For the record, so would I. I don’t like baiting (I’ll save the reasons for another show). However, I can reasonably understand that without baiting the success rate for taking a bear would drop significantly, seriously hampering the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) ability to maintain the bear population at healthy levels.

But factual information is void in such conversations with animal lovers.

I’ve heard the argument before that baiting unnaturally over-feeds bears, causing a false increase in the number of offspring and that baiting habituates bears to human conditions, i.e. food and smells. The letter writer states: “One of the worst things that can be done to manage a bear population is to artificially increase the amount of available food in the environment and accustom them to human food and smells…”

Under different conditions, this may be true but I don’t think so in this case. If baiting was seriously widespread, in other words, that there actually is an artificial increase in food in the environment (not just at bait stations), throughout the entire habitat of Maine, artificially feeding bears would probably cause a problem.

According to the MDIFW’s website, bears in Maine number as high as 36,000: “Maine’s bear population remained fairly stable through 2005, but has been increasing over the last 5 years and our current estimate is between 24,000 and 36,000 bears.”

We also can find that in 2016 Maine’s bear harvest totaled 2,859. The same data tells us that 68% or 1,936 bears were taken over bait. From previous information found at various sources, it has been estimated that bear hunting success rate is around 30%. For Maine to have harvested 2,859, the number of licensed hunters probably approached 9,000. 62% of all bears harvested was done by out-of-state (guided) hunters.

How does all this translate into the number of bait piles and where they were located geographically? I dunno, but it would certainly appear that the process of baiting may have affected only a very small portion of the bear population, if at all, regardless of how one might fudge the numbers. Even if it were biologically correct to state that artificial feeding increases bear populations, baiting bears does not and cannot have any real effect on the growth of bears.

We also know that bears much prefer natural foods. During high-yield mast crop years, attracting bears to baiting stations is a difficult task to accomplish.

This is a poor argument to use against the use of bait for bears and is always simply a play on the emotions of readers.

The second letter is an excellent example of bunkum and balderdash. The diatribe begins with an attempt at likening bobcat hunting to an unfair advantage for the hunter over the animal because it doesn’t have a helmet, protective padding and shoes….or something.: “Most of us like some kind of sports by either following them, participating in them or both. Whatever ones we prefer, we expect that players or teams be more or less evenly matched in terms of skill and equipment.

We’d protest, for instance, if the tennis players we were rooting for were not allowed to use rackets, and we’d be in an uproar if the quarterbacks and linemen on our favorite team were denied helmets, protective padding and shoes.

Why? Because we require a level playing field and we believe in fairness, as well as giving those we contend against a sporting chance.”

Oh, my! This might deserve the Golden Horse Excrement Award.

Let’s put it this way. If the letter writer wants a “level playing field” wouldn’t that mean that each team would have an even chance, 50-50, of winning? This sounds more like “each participant gets a trophy.” How is it a level playing field when MDIFW has determined that a better than average chance at a bobcat hunter being successful, i.e. winning, runs at not much better than 9%?

But we soon discover the real reason for the whining and complaining: “…we believe that the consequence of defeat should not be the forfeiture of life itself.” Okay, so everyone DOES get a trophy. As I said, I don’t have an issue with people who don’t like to see animals die. I understand this but they don’t understand that the perpetuation of life insists that something must die in order for life to continue. But I digress.

The writer then goes on questioning the MDIFW’s bobcat management practices of which I have no problem. After all, I spend a great deal of time questioning their wildlife management practices. The letter writer states that MDIFW has no idea how many bobcats are in the state of Maine. This may be somewhat true but they do have a system, although it may be antiquated (I haven’t studied the plans and formulas used), where bobcat populations are estimated (like every other game species) and harvest requirements formulated from that information. See the plan here.

(Note: The writer honestly doesn’t see any difference between hunters and trappers legally taking wild animals for various reasons and MDIFW’s prohibition on hunters and trappers killing domestic animals. Where does one go from here?)

Then the writer gets back to the real meat and potatoes as to why he wants bobcat hunting to end: “Hunting bobcats is cruel and abusive.” And let’s not forget it’s “inhumane.”

What the writer rambles on about at this point is mostly pointless to discuss as it becomes obvious the writer places animals at an existence equal to or greater than that of man, giving them the attributes of man: “The word humane is derived from the world [word?] humanity, but until that connection is understood and practiced, what we have is really nothing less than state-sanctioned cruelty…”

The word “humanity” (an Evolution term) first appears in the late 14th century. All definitions and attributes are given to the existence of man…not animals. “Human” and “humane” were used interchangeably for centuries all in reference to characteristics of man…not animals.

Few know that “humane societies” were first established to save drowning people.

Any sense of humaneness pertaining to animals should only be derived from a value-weighted perception of the man toward the animal. It is certainly debatable as to whether or not an animal thinks, acts, and feels the same as a man. It is when we project our own “human” qualities onto animals, we get into some real serious issues.

I really do not understand what the author is saying when he says that “until that connection is understood.” Assuming he means a connection between human and humanity, I fail to see any connection that pertains to the existence of animals.

Not that many animal lovers would care to learn from the Scriptures, but perhaps I can give a better understanding of the role our Creator intended between man and beast (all animals, i.e. birds, fish, mammals, etc.). Genesis 1:26 tells us at the time in which He was going to “create man in our image,” “and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth and moveth on the earth.”

In verse 28, Yaweh instructs Adam to “Bring forth fruit, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over every beast that moveth upon the earth.”

After the Great Flood, Yaweh once again gave Noah and his sons the same instructions. We find them in Genesis 9: 1-5: “Also the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the heaven, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.

3 Everything that moveth and liveth, shall be meat for you: as the green herb, have I given you all things.”

Clearly, the role of the animal toward man’s existence is clearly defined. An animal, of any kind, is not and does not have the same existence as that of man. It was intended for food, the same as plants.

Unfortunately, these verses and others are too often taken out of context to mean that man can do anything he wishes to an animal. Proverbs 12:10 tells us: “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The original Hebrew word for “regardeth” is “yada.” It carries many meanings, mostly in reference to acknowledging “the life of the beast.” It also carries the meaning “to respect.”

Yaweh gave us all the plants and animals of the Earth. After the flood, He told Noah and his sons that animals “shall be meat (food) for you.” His Scripture also tells us to be knowledgeable about the beasts and give them respect. Obviously, this didn’t mean to the point that animals are protected beyond that which might ensure their existence or to the detriment of man.

My advice to the animal lovers and those who hate hunting and trapping, tell us how upset you are because someone is killing an animal, but save the bunkum and balderdash about equal playing fields and “inhumane” treatment of animals.

As an aside: The author quotes someone who says, “Bobcats are worth more for wildlife watching and tracking opportunities than they are as pelts.” Wildlife watching? Tracking? Seriously? I have lived in Maine for going on 66 years. I have “wildlife watched” a bobcat once in my life and that was while visiting a park in Florida. It would appear that this person places little value on the life of a bobcat. Shame.

 

Share
Filed Under: Bear Hunting, Game Management, Maine Hunting News, National/World, Predators, Trapping Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

“Keystone Species”: The Nauseating Narrative of Convenience

October 18, 2017 by Leave a Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Share
Filed Under: Maine Hunting News, Maine Outdoor News Tagged With: , , , , ,

No Predator Control Leads to Increased Problems With Human Interaction

October 10, 2017 by 1 Comment

The insane Leftists who want large predators living in everyone’s backyard…except their own of course…continue to repeat the nonsense that in places where bear hunting and trapping, or bear baiting have been eliminated, the bear populations have remained steady, or dropped, and there have been no increase in bear/human encounters. How then does the Left explain the following story?

Officials with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CDEEP) say that bears in the Constitution State number about 700 and are growing at a rate of about 10% per year. In addition, problem complaints from residents are rising proportionately.

Members of New Jersey’s Sierra Club, who say the only “problem” with bears in Connecticut is lack of education to teach people how to live a life as a prisoner so bears can destroy anything they wish, also deliberately lie to say that in New Jersey, after instituting a bear hunt, nothing has changed. Officials with the CDEEP say the data they have on New Jersey shows a marked decrease in the number of bear/human interactions.

This, of course, is a great example of the “post normal” world in which we have been forced to live in. The end justifies the means and either side repeats anything they want, claiming it as “the truth” in order to fulfill their personal agendas.

What to believe and why should any of us believe anything anymore?

Added Note: This report claims that New Jersey’s bear population continues to grow and the overall bear population nationwide has doubled in more than a century to over 400,000.

 

Share
Filed Under: Bear Hunting, Game Management, National/World, Predator Attacks, Predators Tagged With: , , , , ,

Next Up For H(I)S(I)US: Ban Mountain Lion Hunting

October 2, 2017 by Leave a Comment

*Editor’s Note* – It seems that with these extremists, like H(I)S(I)US, that the only qualifier in killing any animal is when a person’s live is threatened. HSUS makes me feel like my life is being threatened. So, now what?

In November 2018, the world’s wealthiest animal-rights organization intends to ask Arizona voters to ban mountain lion, bobcat and other big-cat hunting. Operating under the name ‘Arizonans for Wildlife,’ the campaign is really being spearheaded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The group filed language on September 25 with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office to allow the signature-gathering process to begin in an effort to qualify the issue for the 2018 ballot. If the language is approved, the HSUS-led group would have to gather 150,642 valid voter signatures by July 5, 2018 to qualify for the election on November 6, 2018.

The language filed by the anti-hunting group would remove mountain lions and bobcats from the state’s list of huntable species. Under the proposed language, mountain lions and bobcats, along with jaguars, ocelots and lynx, would be called “wild cats,” and be prohibited from hunting or trapping.<<<Read More>>>

Share
Filed Under: National/World, Predators Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Dinks Spring Mink – Minks Are Now Dead

July 25, 2017 by Leave a Comment

Between 30,000 and 40,000 farm-raised minks were released into the wild near Eden Valley, Minnesota, earlier this week when burglars—presumably animal rights activists—cut the fence to a mink-pelt farm and opened the cages holding the mammals, letting them run into the wild.

Minks are strange little creatures somewhere between otters and ferrets, and when they run, their front halves and back halves teeter independently like two people pretending to be one horse. While the idea of tens of thousands of minks flopping through a pasture is quite amusing, the minks’ liberation likely came at a price: Farm-raised minks aren’t really able to make it in the wild. Many of the minks died once released because of the heat. The ones that were recovered alive were haphazardly thrown into pens, which disrupted their social groupings and drove the minks to kill one another.<<<Read More>>>

 

Share
Filed Under: National/World, Stupid Human Tricks Tagged With: ,

Are We Good Stewards of Our Environment?

May 18, 2017 by Leave a Comment

During a radio interview with my friends at Shake, Rattle and Troll, I was asked a few questions, some of which I don’t think I answered succinctly or expressed myself to the specifics of what was on my mind at the time of the interview. It is one of the difficulties one might face when doing radio interviews, live and without foreknowledge of what questions would be asked. Any problems that might have happened were not the fault of anyone at Shake, Rattle and Troll.

One specific question I was asked, I would like to clear up any misconceptions and better explain my answer. I was asked if I thought that in this country man has been a good steward of our environment. I answered yes, which might have caught some off guard. Not to make excuses but my mind was focused on wolves…after all, my book about wolves was what I was asked to talk about and answer questions.

I did answer the question as it might pertain to whether or not man has been a good steward concerning our attempts to sustain populations of wildlife. Over all, I think we have. There are exceptions, as always, and what is never honestly considered in such discussions is how much natural occurrences contribute to loss of wildlife. The finger is always and quickly pointed to the evils of man.

We are only kidding ourselves to think it’s an easy task to find some kind of equilibrium of happiness and satisfaction between consumptive users of our natural resources and the environmentalists who want nothing touched.

I stated that I believe people want clean water and clean air but that I didn’t think they knew how to achieve that. I didn’t have time to further explain. It’s easy to talk about having clean water and clean air, but what are those? Who gets to define clean air and clean water and by what standards do they go by. Leaving it up to governments is a huge mistake, however, too many trust their government. Yikes!

We may all be convinced that we have clean water, land and air, but in many cases we have been lied to. We talk about “clean” drinking water only to find out it may be clean by someone’s standards while the water is laced with harmful chemicals. But, we don’t talk about that. We see pretty parks and pretty flowers and plants and to our uneducated eye, it must all be clean. We briefly look to the sky and if we see haze, we are conditioned to believe it is pollution and yet if we see chemical trails from aerosol spraying, we are told it is condensation even though the trail lingers for the duration of the day and into the night.

We want clean air and clean water but we are not getting it. We are told of the strides we have made to “scrub” our smoke stacks and clean up exhaust emissions, while at the same time corporate America is given a free pass and Americans foot the bill.

I could go on and on. If I were to answer the question posed in a more general fashion, then I would have to say that man has not been good stewards of our environment because those who take charge of that mission are lying, stealing, cheating thieves. If a problem surfaces it’s blamed on “man,” that is the common man, i.e. you and I. And we are forced to pay because we are citizen slaves to a corporate constitution that says we will pay all the debt….period.

A second question I was asked was about whether I thought wolf (re)introduction into the Northern Rocky Mountains, the Desert Southwest and the Southeast were good things. I answered no and further stated that it was a criminal enterprise. If we had had the entire day on the radio we could have discussed this issue and would still have only scratched the surface. That’s why you should by my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?”

Beyond the criminal enterprise, what makes the (re)introduction bad can be assessed in two simple observations. 1.) The opportunity for citizens to hunt for game and food has been seriously reduced in many places, due to wolves tearing hell out of the elk, deer and moose herds. This should be unacceptable. 2.) The unnecessary loss of livestock (private property) and a person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (Yehwah’s given right not man’s). It is a testimony to the direction this country has gone that shows that any animal should be given priority over the well-being of man.

Another point I wished I had the time to discuss was the section in my book all about how the process of devising the Environmental Impact Statement was rooted in fraud and ignorance. Every item listed for consideration in the drafting of the EIS that was of concern to the people and property was blatantly disregarded. As a matter of fact, officials who wrote the EIS came right out and said it was only considering those things that positively benefited the wolf or placed the wolf in a positive light. In other words, man did not matter.

One blatant example of this can be seen when it was asked of the Government’s wolf officials, if they intended to vaccinate the wolf to prevent the spread of disease (to humans), etc. the answer went directly to their point: They would do everything necessary to protect the wolf from any harm or illness.

Since the drafting of the EIS, every item disregarded because the Government said it was not worthy of consideration, are the only issues that remain unsolved and pose the biggest challenges to the public’s health and safety and the protection of game herds.

The last thing I wanted to better explain had to do with my comments about the perverse nature Americans have been manipulated into when it comes to animals. It was agreed upon by those conducting the interview, and myself, that it is a serious problem in this country when people place any animal, wild or domestic, on a plain of existence equal to or greater than man. I tried to explain that doing such was in contradiction to the Scriptures and our Creators intention for the role that animals would play in consideration of His creation of Man.

I went so far as to state that these actions were an abomination to the Creator. And it is. It is because playing gOD and attempting to change His order of Existence is making a mockery of Yehwah and His work. That is an abomination. Abominations directed at Yehwah will never go unpunished.

If your basic belief system is not focused on the Scriptures and the Creation of the Almighty, I would not expect you to agree with or even understand this position.

But now you better understand mine.

Share
Filed Under: Endangered Species, Endangered Species Act, Energy/Natural Resources, Environment, Featured Article, Predators, Wildlife Science Tagged With: , , , , ,

Dear Montana Wolf Hunter: Do You Have a Strong Emotional Bond With Wolves?

May 15, 2017 by 1 Comment

Think about this one…if you are at all capable. It appears the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department sent out a wolf management survey to some of the residents. What’s not clear to me is exactly who the survey was mailed to. I wonder because the letter (shown below) that accompanied the survey, is addressed this way: “Dear Resident Wolf Hunter.” If the survey was only sent to Montana resident wolf hunters, then the question needs to be asked why did the survey include Questions 12 and 25? (Shown below)

Question 12 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think “the rights of wolves” are more important than the interests of humans. Doesn’t that tell us a lot of where the perspective on wildlife and animals is and where it is going? I need to ask, why you would ask a Montana Resident Wolf Hunter, whose goal, I am to assume, is to kill a wolf….or five, would be interested in “the rights of wolves” or other socially retarded, emotional, clap-trap, insane issues as wolf rights and emotional bonds, among others?

But it gets worse. Question 25 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think wolves should have the same rights as people, hunting is disrespectful to animals, have a “strong emotional bond,” and the list is nauseating to read. Only a mentally ill quack would think up such questions.

Yesterday in a radio interview I talked of how our society has become so perverse toward animals, placing them at an existence level higher than man, that it was an abomination unto Yehwah.

The idea that any managers of wildlife would ask such insane and perverse questions says a lot about the status of our mentally deranged society and drives home the reality that hunting, trapping and fishing are rapidly headed toward its end. Don’t kid yourself. There is no hope.

In my opinion, this survey was either sent to a random sampling of Montana residents, disguised as a survey for Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, whose objective is to be able to publish results of this survey that contain mostly or all non hunting residents to manipulate public opinion. Or, they are sending this survey only to Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, and as a reflection of the positions, policies and values of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, are attempting to continue the brainwashing of as many hunters as they can to effect the gradual, perverse changes that they intend for all the rest of us.

Psalm 36: 1 Wickedness saith to the wicked man,even in mine heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

2 For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, while his iniquity is found worthy to be hated.

3 The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to understand and to do good.

4 He imagineth mischief upon his bed: he setteth himself upon a way, that is not good, and doth not abhor evil.

5 Thy mercy, O Lord, reacheth unto the heavens, and thy faithfulness unto the clouds.

6 Thy righteousness is like the mighty mountains: thy judgments are like a great deep: thou Lord, dost save man and beast.

7 How excellent is thy mercy, O God! therefore the children of men trust under the shadow of thy wings.

8 They shall be satisfied with the fatness of thine house, and thou shalt give them drink out of the river of thy pleasures.

9 For with thee is the well of life, and in thy light shall we see light.

10 Extend thy loving-kindness unto them that know thee, and thy righteousness unto them that are upright in heart.

11 Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked men move me.

12 There they are fallen that work iniquity: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise.

Share
Filed Under: As in Days of Noah/Sodom, conservation, Game Management, Montana Hunting News, National/World, Predators Tagged With: , , , ,

Demand Censorship to Promote Animal Idealism

May 12, 2017 by Leave a Comment

The linked-to article below is but one more example of how the progressives on the left are such ignorant hypocrites and the totalitarians they really are. The author takes issue with an article published in the Portland Press Herald that addressed the fact (yes it is a fact, studied by and published by read search scientists) that the wild canines living in Maine are a breed mixture of coyote, wolf and domestic dog. This ad mixture has resulted in a larger canine species carrying with in some wolf traits as well as those of the domestic dogs they may have bred with. This is nothing more than a biological fact of dog breeding.

All this evidently stirs up the demands by leftists to censor the journalist who wrote the story because the article did not 100% support the nonsense the coyote adorers want to force on to the public. Only their “truth” matters.

As an example of leftist demonization of anyone with a contrary thought, the author takes the high road and claims the only one in existence that holds the keys to enlightenment. Odd that the same author chose to take quotes from old retired biologists, who were trained in the ridiculous theories about wild canines, i.e. at a time when theories swarmed about trophic cascades and the “balance of nature,” as well as the myth of litter size doubling when coyotes are killed. All of these theories have since that time been scientifically proven as false, at least to some degree, and yet it is still convenient to cherry pick what fits a narrative.

Another tactic is the use of words to present members of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and anyone else who might support control of predators, as barbaric people and ignorant of the science of predator prey relationships and the behavior of wild canines. I might suggest that anyone who would rely on old, rejected science and ancient quotes about how coyotes in Maine are no threat to the deer herd, when coyotes numbered less than 5,000 (today closer to 20,000) are the ones who are ignorant of facts.

The truth in all of this is we have a group(s) that perceives any animal at or above the same plane of existence as man and they loathe any kind of animal killing. These are the same people who generally promote the murder of over one million unborn babies a year and yet go off the deep end when reasonable people try to find a respectable balance within the animal resources we have that are a benefit to all, not just those who worship animals.

I would suggest that if this author is going to attempt to scientifically prove that controlling and managing wildlife is wrong and barbaric….oh, wait. There is no science to prove that. More than likely these people are still doing daily readings from Farley Mowat.

“Portland Press Herald readers and subscribers want and expect high quality journalism on wildlife, wildlife policy matters, and the role wild animals play in healthy, bio-diverse ecosystems.

It is past time to move these important subjects out of the realm of the sports department to give them the serious attention and treatment they deserve.”<<<Read More>>>

Share
Filed Under: Game Management, Maine Hunting News, Maine Outdoor News, Predators, Science, Wildlife Science Tagged With: , , ,

Abortion Should Be the Recommended Instrument to Control Animal Populations

May 1, 2017 by 1 Comment

Insane debate rages in Maine over a proposed constitutional amendment wrongly presented as a guaranteed right to hunt, fish and trap.

Last week I was reading an article that contained some comments from those opposed to the amendment and those in favor of such. In one comment from a member of the opposition a woman stated, “This proposal’s vague terms open the door to inhumane, unethical trapping and hunting practices.” 

We are subjected to the nonsensical drivel of the animal rights perverts but consider the realities here and then take a step back and ask yourself just exactly who is inhumane, unethical and insane.

It is always the Left who promote animal rights, while presenting animals as sentient beings of and above the existence of man, endowed with all the same rights, and more, as man. Any form of killing of an animal to these perverse followers of Satanic animal worship is considered “inhumane.” Ever stopped for a minute to understand what the word “inhumane” is derived from? I didn’t think so.

And so, in this one tiny discussion, it is believed by an obvious Leftist that a constitutional amendment suggesting that hunting, fishing and trapping be utilized as a means of controlling the population of certain game animals, will lead to “inhumane, unethical” practices.

Forget that this statement makes no sense at all, and just consider the positions always taken by the Left that make absolutely no sense, contradict their own stated positions and expose themselves as the ignorant frauds that they are.

The Left opposes the killing on ANY animal because doing so is “inhumane” and “unethical.” (understand that many of the same eat dead animals) However, they will give their own lives to defend what they call the right to mutilate and murder an unborn baby. To these mixed up individuals, which number in the millions, it is somehow humane and ethical to pop the head of an unborn baby, tear it to pieces and toss it in a garbage can, and yet hunting, fishing and trapping is inhumane.

Geez! At least most hunters eat what they kill. Do Leftists eat mutilated babies?

Perhaps then, if this country insists on living as mixed up, immoral murderers of babies while protecting animals, wildlife managers should begin a system of capturing and aborting the unwanted fetuses of animals in order to, not only control the population of certain species of animals but to also protect the rights of the female game animals who, according to many on the Left, should enjoy the same “rights” as us immoral and murdering, unethical and inhumane, Americans.

Nothing abnormal here. Move along.

Share
Filed Under: As in Days of Noah/Sodom, Maine Hunting News, National/World, The Absurd Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,