October 14, 2019

It Is Hunting Season. Enjoy It While It Lasts

The hunting seasons are upon us. A long tradition and heritage of hunting, as part of a decent wildlife management program, prompts fewer and fewer people to take up the event. Combined with the pressures coming from a post-normal totalitarian society of love of animal over love of neighbor, threatens what was once a valued near right of passage.

No longer do people quietly go about their own business of living a life of their own convictions. They are programmed to go to war and put their boots to other’s throats in every attempt to force their preferences onto to others. They just can’t live in peace and let others do the same.

Such is today’s existence. Hunting is threatened in many ways and at the rate things are going, there will be no hunting, trapping, and fishing perhaps before my lifetime is complete.

What a shame!

So, I highly recommend that hunters, particularly those who have hung up their rifles, preferring to make gobs of money, dust off that symbol of freedom and outdoor enjoyment, and get into the woods as much as possible for that pleasure will soon be yanked out from under us, much the same as other rights and privileges.

This is NOT the America I grew up in.

God must be ashamed of our actions…and yet, he is always there to forgive.

I am taking to the woods! See you there where it is peaceful and quiet…for now.

Share

Former Justice Steven’s Call For Repeal of 2A Should Be a Call to Repeal Many Amendments

In former Associate Justice John P. Steven’s opinion piece in the New York Times that calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, he describes the Second Amendment as “a relic of the 18th century.” His belief that the Second Amendment is a relic seems to be based on his narrow interpretation that the only purpose of the Second Amendment was for the formation and useful perpetuation of a “well regulated militia.”

If we, therefore, justify the repealing of the Second Amendment because it is no longer effective and precise today as it was when written, then why stop at the Second Amendment?

For the purest, one would have to ask if the Second Amendment has ever been completely recognized in its simplest form. No other amendment states that the terms of such amendment are qualified as “shall not be infringed.” The dictionary defines “infringe” as “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” And yet, from the very beginning, someone or group of someones has actively sought to “break the terms” and/or “limit or undermine” the Second Amendment.

If we base our modern appraisal of all the other amendments on whether or not they are fitting and suitable in today’s society according to how they are used and abused by Congress and the Courts, then applying Justice Stevens’ way of thinking toward the Second Amendment, perhaps we should consider repealing the First Amendment.

After all, isn’t it a “relic?” Congress seems to operate liberally in making laws that favor or protect one religion over the other. Mostly in today’s America people are seeking a uniform religion with idealism and ideology as its head. We are already beginning to see the call by some for the State to rid the country of at least certain religions in favor of one.

And how much real free speech do we have anymore? Censorship is running rampant in social media as well are other forms of limitation of free speech on display.

The Press gets to exercise their freedom to the extent that they are no longer reliable for truth. While it is ultimately up to the individual to decern truth from fiction, surely I can argue that such a dishonest and dangerous profession does not deserve a constitutional amendment that will protect their lying and cheating ways providing them an avenue toward propaganda and public influence.

It is rare these days that any protest is a peaceable assembly. Because this is now allowed, evidently the right to peaceably assemble is a relic of the 18th Century.

Of what real value does the Fourth Amendment carry? Your protection against “illegal searches and seizures” works well when it conveniently fits the narrative of the law enforcement/government at the moment. But when the government really wants to disregard that right of protection, no piece of paper is worth the ink that is written on it.

As an example that should be at the forefront of all American’s memory was during the Boston Marathon Bombing fraud. We were being told that the perpetrators went down a particular street and authorities were searching door to door. During this period armed thugs went door to door, breaking them down if necessary, without due process or any consideration of the Fourth Amendment. Obviously, by today’s progressive standards, what use is the Fourth Amendment? Shouldn’t it also be repealed, Mr. Stevens?

Amendment VI: Speedy trial? That’s a joke and has been for a long time.

Amendment X: The Corporate States have only those rights and sovereignty granted to it by the Corporate United States.

This effort pointing out the obvious could go on, but I digress.

It would seem that when ideology, and in particular, political ideology, doesn’t care much for certain bills of rights, the call is to repeal them or demand “reasonable” limitations. Perhaps if the Second Amendment hadn’t become so bastardized from its original intent and the people were actually allowed to keep and bear arms without infringement from any other source, there would be no calling out by some of the people to repeal the Second Amendment in an attempt to rid this nation of private ownership of arms. On the same token, if all the other Amendment had not been so muted and muddled, that protection of rights might be worth fighting to save.

Logical conclusions might be drawn when, upon examination, we discover that along with a downward spiraling society, the more the Second Amendment has been “reasonably” destroyed by all, the more of a problem this nation is seeing when it comes to violence and the ease in which a mentally deranged individual (or not) can enter a school property, or other “Gun Free Zone” and slaughter people.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. I’m not sure what it’s called when you take the same failure and work on increasing the rate of failure hoping for a better outcome.

Thomas Lifson’s article in the American Thinker says that all the events of late about guns and gun violence have resulted in the exposure of the true intentions of the Left. For many decades now, many of us have attempted to expose those seeking to limit or destroy the rights of people, along with our American Heritage, as carrying out acts of incrementalism, i.e. chipping away at those rights one tiny law at a time. Lifson says now we are seeing the true colors and uses the opinion piece of Justice Stevens as proof of the Left’s real intent of a full repeal of the Second Amendment.

I won’t argue with Lifson’s observation. One thing is for certain. The divide in this country grows. Where it will end up is anyone’s guess. One possibility is a terrible one.

The Global Power Structure is in control over all of this. The events we are seeing before us are mostly planned, and being carried out for sinister reasons. Justice Stevens’ call for a repeal of the Second Amendment is part of the plan.

The stage is being set. THEY have been working on it for a long time. It won’t be long before something breaks. What? I don’t know, but for certain something.

Share

Our outdoor heritage faces an uncertain future

When it comes to Maine’s fabled outdoor heritage, you don’t have to be a social scientist or a statistician to sense what is going on. Changing times are leaving a mark on our culture in countless ways. If you visit a few rod and gun clubs around the state, a common theme shows itself: a predominance of wrinkled gray-haired members and a glaring absence of bright-eyed, fresh-scrubbed youth among the club rolls.

Equally apparent, if you are an older sportsman yourself, who still spends time in the deer woods or on the fishing waters of this state, is that there seems to be a significant absence of active sportsmen like yourself.<<<Read More>>>

 

Share

RMEF Allocates $3.5 Million for Habitat Stewardship, Hunting Heritage

MISSOULA, Mont.—In addition to work in permanent land protection, public access and elk restoration, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation allocated more than $3.5 million so far in 2014 for habitat stewardship and hunting heritage projects across the United States.

The total includes more than $3.1 million specifically directed for elk habitat, research, elk restoration and wildlife-related conservation projects in 27 states with wild, free-ranging elk populations. Additional funding is allotted for hunting heritage programs in 49 states.

Banquet-based membership and fundraising activities by local RMEF chapters generated the funding that state volunteers and staff will direct into various on-the-ground projects and programs.

“What can you say about our volunteers who number more than 10,000 strong?” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “It’s thanks to their hard work, passion and dedication that we have this funding to turn around and put back on the ground in their own backyards which will enhance the future of elk, other wildlife, their habitat and our hunting heritage.”

“This allocation of funds has and will fund Project Advisory Committee projects, state grants, and a portion of the Virginia and Missouri elk restoration projects,” said Blake Henning, RMEF vice president of Lands and Conservation. “Individual states also designated some of the funds to our national programs and initiatives.”

Habitat projects are selected for RMEF grants using science-based criteria and a committee of RMEF volunteers and staff along with representatives from partnering agencies and universities from their respective states. Project examples include prescribed burning, forest thinning and management, noxious weed treatments, water improvements and other habitat enhancement work carried out mostly on public lands. Also included are research projects to better understand and improve management of elk, habitat, predators and other factors that influence conservation.

Hunting heritage projects are selected by RMEF staff and volunteers in their individual states and are based on the ability to provide education about habitat conservation, the value of hunting, hunting ethics and wildlife management, and reaching out to youth.

RMEF will also distribute funding received through donations, partnerships with conservation-minded partners, grants and other means to its national core programs of habitat stewardship, land protection, elk restoration and hunting heritage.

Share

Baiting Bears (Animals) is Inhumane Because HSUS Says So

The perverse, non-thinking, hypocrites at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and other environmental groups think that putting out bait to attract a bear to a site for the consideration of taking a bear for harvest, is inhumane. When one considers the multiple ways in which humans have always “baited” animals, not only for sustenance but to also reduce or eliminate pests, why then does the HSUS, et. al. pick on bears and bear hunters.

Should the HSUS and their blind followers be successful in presenting a citizen’s initiative in Maine to effectively end bear hunting, bear trapping and bear hounding, then we should prepare for the stoppage of the use of any kind of “bait” for fishing, including artificial lures and flies. I assume then that the anti humans at HSUS would prepare to stop tree stand sitting for all other species to hunt. No more imitating sounds to “bait” an elk, deer, turkey or a moose into your hunting area. No more cover scents. No more luring scents and sounds. And let’s not forget putting cheese or peanut butter in a mouse trap.

There are some members of these hate-filled, totalitarian organizations that believe that providing “bait” for game is making animals unnaturally fat and disrupting that animal’s good, balanced diet. If so, then what will be their argument when they have succeeded in ending “baiting” bears (of which I don’t recall anyone has defined what constitutes “bait.”) and hunters and trappers continue to use man-made, artificial lures and “baits?”

Will HSUS be successful in ridding Maine of this person’s game attractants and cover scents, along with many, many others?

We haven’t been presented with any such referendum…yet. I will guarantee that if and when that time comes, there will be nothing in that referendum to define specifically what it is they intend to prohibit through referendum. And that’s by design and ignorance…..they know nothing about bear hunting, trapping or hounding.

Groups like HSUS do their homework. They determine who or what is vulnerable to one of their anti human attacks, for the purposes of forcing people to end their long-held heritages in exchange for a decadent, hate-filled, progressive, Marxist lifestyle. They care not about the welfare of the bear or any other animal, yet they are very good at pretending. HSUS has proven they are an illegal, political, lobbying organization that deceives people into giving up their money for animals and very little goes for animal welfare. Because they work in conjunction with the corrupt, agenda-driven United States Government, a blind eye is turned their way and they are allowed to continue their corrupt and deceptive practices.

Their target is to end your heritage because they see this kind of lifestyle as a direct threat to their future. HSUS and their groupies will lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. Pretending they care about the inhumane aspects of animal welfare is a joke. They want the destruction of your lifestyle.

They may or may not be successful in putting a stop to “baiting” bears. But it will not end there. They will go after lures and attractants. Their goal is to stop all hunting, trapping and yes, they also want to stop fishing.

Gee, I think I recall having said all these same things during all the last lawsuits filed against Maine and other states. And yet, I continue to hear from hunting, trappers and fishermen that the perverse environmentalists will go away. Not going to happen.

donutsmakebearsfat

Share

Is Maine’s Hunting Future About Leased Land?

landleasebearhunting

The State of Maine has a wonderful heritage of access to land, a heritage that operates well when there is mutual respect. Under state guidelines, private land is open to public access unless it is posted by the landowner. For those looking for hunting access and even recreational access in general, we discover signs reading that the land is closed to all trespassing, by permission only or perhaps even restricted use to specific activities such as hunting.

Maine is quite unique in this fashion of open access unless otherwise signed differently. But, is that changing? Is the purchase of leases from landowners going to become a thing of the future?

I have believed for many years that it was only a matter of time and now Maine may be seeing more and more signs of it coming to fruition. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, there are some in Maine pushing for hunting leases and they are not necessarily one of those landowners who can only see a profit. Other states require written permission and/or to pay the owner of that land a certain sum of money for a lease, complete with covenants, that may restrict activities and limit number of hunters in a lease, times of the day and days of the week.

Depending upon the size of the private property, more than one lease may be established and if this parcel of land is a very desirable hunting ground, the cost of a lease can be quite expensive; even unattainable if you don’t have any money. Which brings us to perhaps the absolute worst part of hunting leases: It disqualifies many hunters without the financial means to purchase a hunt. They are then restricted to public lands, if there are any open to hunting. Where in the public trust is opportunity limited to one’s financial status? And should then all hunters have to pay the same price for a license now that their opportunities are restricted?

There is more to the establishment of hunting leases than a landowner seeing dollar signs. The sportsmen themselves, including the guides and outfitters, encourage this action whether they fully realize it or not.

In the sign posted above, take note that the area has been leased for bear hunting and nobody else is allowed access to this land for hunting bear with bait or with hounds. I assume others may access the land to hunt bears via stalking method? And please define “bait.” Is it a food product or scented lures?

The photo was taken by a friend and was sent to me. I have no way of knowing who holds the lease for bear hunting on this land. There is an example of what might (emphasis on might) be going on here or is the result of what has gone on in the past.

At Robin’s Outdoors website, she writes of an incident involving her, her husband, and a very aggressive/angry guide.

He [the guide] asked Steve what he was doing (waiting for his wife who was sitting over a bait), demanded to see his AFM (American Forestry Management) permit, and gave Steve a hard time. I don’t have or need an AFM permit. I’m not hunting on AFM land. I was on Peter’s land. He told Steve that as a Registered Maine Guide he has the right to demand to see his permit and hunting license (He does not.) and is obligated to turn him into the Maine Warden Service for illegal hunting on his baits.

Guides, not all, want unfettered and sole access to land for bear hunting for their “sports” (a term used to describe a sportsman who hires and pays for guide services). I can understand, to a degree. I’ve been in business my entire life and certainly understand the need to run a business for profit. But at what expense?

If you read the entire article linked to above, you will also see that it is a fact that idiot hunters undertake illegal acts by sitting in tree stands and utilizing bait stations that don’t belong to them. This action further inflames the attitudes of others to seek a lease for exclusive access and rights for bear hunting. In other words, the pointing of the finger as to what causes signs like the one shown above to go up, can go in both and other directions.

So, now we hunters must ask, how long is it going to be before this sort of signage begins appearing over much of the Pine Tree State? In addition, how long before a word is changed in that signage from bear to deer or moose or for trapping, fishing, etc.?

It is a sad day indeed and perhaps a commentary on what’s become of a civil and respectful society.

Share

RMEF Hosts National Elk Summit Focused on Habitat and Hunting Issues

MISSOULA, Mont.–The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation vowed to step up efforts with state agencies in addressing access, hunting heritage, and habitat challenges at a recent national elk summit held at RMEF headquarters.

The summit included directors or assistant directors representing Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. Kansas officials also submitted a written status of elk in their state. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and RMEF also had representatives present.

“The summit provided a sense of solidarity as state and federal agencies work together to ensure the future of elk and elk country,” said Blake Henning, RMEF vice president and Lands and Conservation. “More importantly, it gave all parties the opportunity to directly communicate with each other and target specific efforts and initiatives that need to take place to make that happen.”

RMEF committed to support state agencies regarding four main challenges: habitat loss, forest management and fragmentation; increasing outreach addressing hunting issues as well as marketing hunting opportunities; providing better access to public and private lands; and continued financial support toward and backing of state and federal wildlife legislative efforts.

Each state also provided an overview on issues related to elk management including population status, hunter success and challenges, fiscal issues, tag sales, marketing needs, habitat and land protection needs, and hunter recruitment.

“There is tremendous value in learning about specific challenges and projects in which the states and others are involved—from the possibility of expanding opportunities to hunt elk in Alaska’s interior to a legislative approach to encourage hunting instead of sharpshooters in national parks to elk restoration efforts in Missouri,” added Henning.

RMEF President and CEO David Allen also addressed the summit. He spoke about elk and predator management, public access and fiscal issues. He also stressed the importance of a cooperative effort between all the agencies and RMEF saying, “Our entire wildlife system hinges on the success of the state agencies. We are your partner and we view you as a partner.”

The three-day conference took place April 29-May 1. Several agency representatives commented on the value of the meeting and the need to hold such summits on a regular basis in the future.

Share

Why Johnny Won’t (Be Able To) Hunt

Republished with permission:

Why Johnny Won’t (Be Able To) Hunt
by John C. Street

(After working to qualify as a member of the prestigious state and national outdoor writers associations in the 1990s, the author said he began to notice the groups’ emphasis changing from supporting hunting to praising the “New World Order” being orchestrated by the United Nations. His final transition from compromising and recognizing “gray” areas, to realizing that everything in his world is either black or white, caused him to resign his membership in the seven clubs, associations and organizations to which an outdoor writer would be expected to belong. – ED)

In the December 2008/January 2009 edition of FIELD & STREAM, Conservation Editor Bob Marshall did an excellent job of shining a bright light onto a dark shadow that is falling over hunting. Bob’s well researched report, “Why Johnny Won’t Hunt” eviscerated the apathy that is eroding participation in this eons old pastime; Johnny won’t hunt because we won’t take him.

With unflinching honesty and solid research to support his conclusion, Bob clearly explained the economic and societal issues that have led to this sad state of affairs, deducing that despite these impediments the future of hunting depends on current participants making a commitment to introducing young people to the outdoors.

From the perspective that his cited research provides, Bob’s conclusion is both logical and correct. But his conclusion is like saying the Green Bay Packers didn’t make it to the Super Bowl this year because they let Brett Favre go. That may very well be true but it is far from a complete explanation.

It’s hard to pinpoint the exact date that hunting (and fishing) began to change but historical evidence points to the late 1970s and early 1980s. Without being overly pessimistic about this change, let’s agree this is when hunting and fishing began to shed their utilitarian “hunter-gatherer” traditions and tied their future to commercialization.

Today, according to a report (“Hunting and Fishing: Bright Stars of the American Economy” available at www. nssf.org) prepared for the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, hunting and fishing are “a $76 billion economic force” here in the United States. Furthermore, the report adds, through the purchases of licenses, related gear and travel, hunters and anglers “directly support 1.6 million jobs … And they generate $25 billion a year in federal, state and local taxes.”

Only the passage of time will tell if this “change” was for better or worse but again, without rendering judgment, this is the sword that hunting and fishing will either live or die by. Let it be recognized, however, that under this new paradigm, hunting and fishing have become just another commercialized pastime. The very uniqueness that lured many of us old-timers to the field and stream in the first place must simply “take a number” along with all the other pastimes competing for the hours in our children’s day.

Ironically, at about the same time hunting and fishing began evolving into a “$76 billion economic force,” a new environmental ethos was taking root here in the United States and, not surprisingly given their historically well documented conservation background, hunters and anglers embraced this newborn environmental awakening.

Today, according to a report (“The NODOG Cluster” available at www.greentrackinglibrary.com) researched and published by the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, this environmental movement has blossomed into a multi-billion dollar, tightly controlled consortium of both fringe and “mainstream environmental” organizations that is attempting to blur the line between traditional hunter/angler groups and the politically potent environmental movement.

Yet, while many in the hunting and fishing community advocate for partnerships between this new, politically potent environmentalism and traditional hunter/angler groups, there is mounting evidence that suggests this will have dangerous consequences for the future of hunting and fishing and may, ultimately, do more to keep Johnny from hunting and fishing than all the economic and societal issues outlined in Bob Marshall’s excellent article.

Like any other “industry,” the hunting and fishing “economic force” is susceptible to and controlled by the market that purchases the “goods” it produces. So, while some of us stodgy old-timers might argue that the array of high-tech electronic and mechanical gadgets and gizmos being hauled – or hauling us – into the woods these days has nothing to do with the real act of hunting, they are the manifestation of a free-market economy working as it should.

However, at the same time those “goods” are being manufactured by the individual companies and corporations that collectively make up the “$76 billion economic force,” their suppliers (the other companies and corporations that extract and harvest raw materials from the Earth) are under attack by the very environmental groups who want hunters and anglers to be their partners. But that, alas, is not worst of it.

Unbeknownst to – or, perhaps, unacknowledged by – most who advocate for a partnership between “mainstream environmental groups” and the “$76 billion economic force,” there is a little known document called “Agenda 21” that spells out prescriptions and action plans for, among a long list of other frightening things, taking away your right to own firearms and curtailing your access to public land. So what, you might ask, does Agenda 21 have to do with Johnny not being able to hunt and fish in the future? Plenty.

Agenda 21 is, as described on the Wikipedia web site (www.wikipedia.com), “a program run by the United Nations related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment.” The “major groups” referred to in this description are identified in the text of the Agenda 21 document as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or, in laymen’s terms, our “main stream environmental groups,” operating as not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) entities.

While it would be appropriate at this point to list the names of the NGOs – the “main stream environmental groups” – who are complicit in aiding and abetting the UN’s effort to deny you your Second Amendment Rights and prevent you from accessing the “Public’s Land” (please look at the “Wildlands Project” while you’re at the Wikipedia’s UN web site), it will serve a much greater purpose if you would go back to the Green Tracking Library and learn this on your own. Suffice to say, you’re in for a shock.
As this nation’s original conservationists, hunters and anglers have a long and distinguished history of being at the forefront of the fight to protect and preserve wildlife and wild places. It was logical, therefore, that when the environmental ethos took hold back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, hunters and anglers would put their time and money into addressing these new environmental concerns.

But the “mainstream environmental groups” that hunters and anglers allied with in those early days of this nation’s environmental awakening have chosen a new course, a course more aligned with the “Sustainable Development” initiatives of the United Nations than with making certain that Johnny always has a place to hunt and fish (Note: For a full explanation of the consequences of the UN’s “Sustainable Development” initiative which is just one part of Agenda 21, please see “Understanding Sustainable Development: A Guide for Public Officials” at www.americanpolicy.org). Now those environmental groups want to co-opt hunters and anglers to be their “Poster Children,” sacrificing a century of conservation credibility on the pantheistic alter of Agenda 21.

What is most alarming, however, is that several national hunter/angler organizations (as detailed in the Green Tracking Library) have already joined ranks with the environmentalists. Lured by the enormous foundation largess bestowed on those willing to convert to the new green Agenda (21), they seem unable to comprehend or, are unwilling to publicly acknowledge their support for, the socio/economic Armageddon that will ensue when the sovereignty of the United States is subjugated to the socialistic prescriptions of the United Nations.

Hunting and fishing are indeed bright stars of the American economy. The question that needs to be asked, therefore, isn’t “Why Johnny won’t hunt.” The question that all the members of this “economic force” need to ask is, “Will Johnny even be able to hunt and fish in the future?”

Note: This article and many more like it can be found in The Outdoorsman magazine. Please click this link to a PDF page where you can print out a form and subscribe to the magazine. The work of George Doval, editor of The Outdoorsman, is arguably the finest work to be found anywhere in print or online publications.

Share

New-Science Wildlife Scientists: Creations of Wellington House – Part II

It is not my intention to foist all the blame for terrible, ridiculous, confusing, misleading and down right poor wildlife management on wildlife science graduates of our universities because that is only part of the picture. It is imperative to keep in mind the entire picture, for the work the new-science scientists are doing would not be working – meaning they are getting away with it – if you and I had not been “trained” to accept it; much like preparing a great Thanksgiving dinner and having no table or guests prepared to eat it.

This concept is probably confusing to most because they cannot see themselves as not holding truth. Most all Americans have knowledge of varying degrees but what is the root of that knowledge? Recently in a mild discussion I had with a friend, I posed the following thought in order to catch a reaction: “Suppose for a moment, if you will, that most everything you have been taught since the day you were born was a lie.”

I got mostly a blank stare and that came as no surprise. After all, who wants to discover they are living a lie? Just think about what that would mean and soon you find how terrifying such an epiphany would be and you want to quickly retreat to the familiar comforts of the environment that’s been created for you.

Let’s return to the list I mentioned in Part I. That was the list of all the things that you believe made America great. That list will vary by generations as the younger our American citizens are, the less they know of what did make America great. If you’ve made a list, whether real or in you mind, on that list you may have included a few things that I talked about in Part I.

I briefly touched on the following:

1.) Our inalienable, God-given rights
2.) The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
3.) A citizenry (sportsmen) who care enough to protect a resource

and to this list, as it pertains to hunting, trapping, fishing, etc., we can add:
4.) Outdoor heritage
5.) The increase in strength of the family unit for those in the outdoors together
6.) The freedom to access land for outdoor recreation
7.) Our access to game resources, i.e. management of wildlife to create a sustainable yield.

I am sure you can add to this list but let’s not miss the point. If these are some of the things that made America great, and I wanted to change and/or destroy that, I simply have to attack each one. If this American heritage and culture were deeply engrained into our society, one might expect it would be difficult to one day just say, “No more hunting, trapping and fishing!” That’s not how it’s done. It’s done one step at a time. A painstaking method of changing the thought processes of the people; all the people.

In looking at my list, I would need to teach people that our rights come from man, meaning governments and that there is no God; that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is only designed for evil men who like to kill things to prove their manhood; that the family unit is invaluable and the identity of that unit must be changed; that sportsmen are selfish, irrational killers of innocent animals; that times have changed and there is no need for a heritage grounded in the outdoors; that the family has better things to do, like go to movies, play computer games, cellphones, sex, drugs, etc.; that land belongs to the government and government decides who can access it and when.

Haven’t many of these things already taken place? And we wonder what is happening to our heritage? Unfortunately, because we are all products of the same education/indoctrination/brainwashing system, we fail to even ask why? Who? What? When? Where? How?

What things in this country have influence over you and your children? Again, along with your list of things that made America great, draft another list of the things in your life that have influence over you and your children/family and friends. It may look something like this:
1.) Parents
2.) Friends
3.) God/Church
4.) School/teachers
5.) Television
6.) Music
7.) Books
8.) Sports
9.) A mentor

Have you ever asked yourself who has control over each of these things? Is it you and I? Have you ever considered that perhaps someone or something has control over all of them and their plan is to change and/or destroy all of those things that made our nation great and along with it, the destruction of our heritage?

Many years ago, the world was very large. We and our children didn’t have access to instant information. Our children spent the majority of their time at home with family, having meals together, learning together, working together, playing together, etc. and the parents, having spent the most time with their kids, had the most influence over them. That no longer is the case. Schools, television, computer games, cellphones, music, etc. are the big influences. If you are willing to accept this premise, then if you care about your family, shouldn’t you know who controls what controls your kids and if there’s a plan behind it?

I do not intend to get into a parenting debate with readers but if we can’t get a grasp on this issue, we can never understand why our outdoor heritage, actually our heritage in general, is disappearing before our very eyes. We are losing our identity and this is because our children are having their identity created by someone else rather than mom and dad.

What if there was one entity with the power, money and influence to control nearly every aspect of our lives and we don’t even know it’s happening? Who decides on our children’s school curriculum and why? Are you aware of what your children are watching on television, who’s behind the programming and what they intend to accomplish by offering it to you and your family? The same can be asked about music, books, nearly every aspect of our lives. Why are we complacent and let it happen?

In Part III, I’ll begin to take a look at the actual people and entities that control our lives. It is that control that decides that our outdoor heritage will be destroyed and hopefully we can learn to recognize it and how it is being done. Then and only then, can we hope to stop it.

Share

If I Wanted To End Hunting, What Would I Do?

If I wanted to be the despot of the New World Order/One World Government, and one of the ways I believed imperative to control the people, those lovers of liberty, to achieve that goal, was to put an end to hunting, trapping and fishing, how would I do it?

In it’s most simplistic form, I would have to take away the tools used to kill game or take away the game. But seriously, who is going to sit quietly by while one day I decide it’s time to destroy and ban ownership of guns, bows and arrows, traps, fishing poles, etc.? So far that hasn’t happened although there are efforts underway to slowly undermine the manufacture and possession of certain of these tools. But just keep believing it’s “reasonable” restrictions. “Nothing to see here! Move on, please!”

And would we as a people revolt if, one day, we woke up and were told all game species are now protected and cannot be hunted, trapped or fished? Probably not as well, but what if it was all just a slow death? Would we even take notice?

I’m not sure how we can put a timeline together as to when it started but in my judgement the birth of environmentalism in the 1970s was the onset of the end of our hunting, trapping and fishing culture and heritage. No, we didn’t wake up one morning and discover we couldn’t hunt and fish. A slow erosion has forever stripped away the identity of our hunting and fishing culture and heritage and replaced it with a socialistic architecture; the result of a war waged at winning the public’s trust first, then a systematic, unnoticeable (by most), dismantling of not only our culture and heritage, but the science that crafted the foundation of a wildlife management scheme of which was the envy of the world.

If it isn’t enough that most of us slept through the 70s, 80s, 90s and the early 2000s, we not only remain asleep but some that have woken up enough to get a first cup of coffee into them, don’t realize they are still being duped and at the same time thinking they have put a stop to, or at least slowed down, the onslaught against hunting and fishing and trapping. Quick! Drink another cup of coffee or six.

I have a case in point, which I will be forthright in saying it is my opinion based on years of reading, research, discovery and history. I have always said a person has met his match when he walks into, let’s say someone’s office, to demand their way and walks out with a big smile on his face believing he has won his demand, not knowing he was further taken advantage of. Being taken advantage of comes from ignorance and naivete.

In the Northern Rocky Mountains region, the citizens there were lied to and miserably misrepresented by government as to the realities of gray wolf reintroduction. Some have called the actions by the United States Government, staff and certain non governmental agencies and staff, criminal in nature and in need of legal prosecution.

Regardless, gray wolves were dumped onto the landscape and the result, in my opinion, has been a disaster; not in the sense that wolves didn’t make a biological recovery, but for whatever the reasons one chooses to point a finger at, it has turned into a social nightmare and a biological imbalance of wildlife species in those areas where wolves have been allowed to run rampant. However, the perpetrators of the wolf introduction aren’t suddenly going to roll over and play dead.

There’s a better way for them. In the original plans, such as they were, there was talk that one day there might be enough wolves in the forest to offer a hunting season on them. By doing such, even though many of the useful idiots who don’t understand the despot’s plan, the varmint dog is elevated to an equal social icon as other “big game” animals, i.e. elk, deer, moose, big horn sheep, grizzlies, etc. Now that the species is elevated to something it should never have been allowed to, more protections are put on the creature and value that is contemptible.

That one day came around and to appease the “sportsmen”, a hunting, and yes, even a trapping season in some places, was offered; a complete placation to the sportsmen. This should have been seen as an insult, a mockery of the tried and esteemed “model” of game management, and instead was hailed by some sportsmen as a victory.

History has proven that you can’t manage the gray wolf like you do other game animals. The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation utilizes the hunting of game species to control populations and a controlling of predators to protect the game species; the key word being “control”. If wolves and other large predators aren’t controlled in order to produce consumptive use, then there will result in no game left to hunt. Oh wait! Isn’t that my despotic plan?

Nearly four years ago I warned that the plans being formulated by fish and game institutions would have no effect on the wolf populations. Around about that same time, I did a five-part series on the historic difficulties by civilizations in many countries, including the United States, to control wolves.

The short of it is, having limited tool and resource hunting and trapping seasons is only going to make the sportsmen think they have gotten their way, when in fact their opportunities will slowly diminish to nothing. Is there a smile on your face? Is that satisfactory to you?

As I write, Idaho and Montana have had wolf hunting seasons. Wyoming and Wisconsin are planning them this fall, although Wyoming’s may not happen because of lawsuits (what else is new?).

As the evil despot that I am, I believe I have mitigated the angst of many of the sportsmen. This will allow me more time to do things like Idaho is doing; lining up environmentalists, animal rights groups, predator protectors, etc. who will funnel the money I channel to them – through worldwide agencies all opposed to consumptive wildlife use, land ownership, liberty and rights – to fund wildlife departments nationwide that have now all been brainwashed into believing my hogwash I injected into the education institutions many years before. My plan is in place, so deeply rooted you’ll never change it. You might slow it down here and there, so go back to sleep.

Not that I think there’s a lot that can be done anymore to stop this giant steamroller, but at least don’t be shot with a black bag over your head. Knowing who killed your culture and heritage must have some kind of redeeming value. Doesn’t it? Snore!

Share