Recently, Jim Beers, contributing writer for this website, wrote an article that concerned a piece found in the Wall Street Journal. The premise of the work is that with the ongoing promotion of “neo” ecological theory of hands-off “natural regulation,” wildlife and land management, and “rewilding,” the society is regressing from a civilized people back to a savage existence.

It prompted me to write my own article that first appeared in print in the Bethel Citizen (small Maine town) newspaper. Here is that article:

Return to a “Savage” State

Open Air with Tom Remington

James Beers, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employee who spent considerable time in Washington, D.C., who became a whistleblower discovering as much as $60 million was stolen from Pittman-Robertson Federal Excise taxes to be used for reintroducing wolves to the Northern Rockies and other illegal activities, recently said that if we are not willing to put a stop to the current “Ecological Theory” that places man as equal to or lesser than that of plants and animals and “spiritual rewilding” our forests and plains, this lack of action will “…return all of us eventually into a “savage state.”

The definition of “civilize” is “to bring out of a savage state.” As our civilization advanced from what some have perceived as uncontrolled slaughter of many of our wild animals and destruction of the habitat that confronted the settlers, through responsible wildlife management which led to developing an understanding of the cooperation of both consumption and conservation, establishing the North American Model of Wildlife Management, we are now moving in a direction that is calling for a hands-off approach to plant and animal management; establishing wilderness and predator protection based somewhat on the belief that Nature produces a preferred outcome.

If the land was in a “natural” state when we found it, i.e. “savage state,” working to restore it to what it once was, or what we think it once was, surely must be a return to an uncivilized, savage state.

We have and are being misled that leaving things up to Nature, will provide for a stabilization of animal and plant existence, i.e. that Nature achieves a “balance” where everything is Nirvana. My very good friend, Dr. Valerius Giest, a professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, says that the Utopian belief in nature, free from the hands of man, achieving balance is “intellectual rubbish.” Life consists of constant negative and positive feedback loops where everything is in constant change.

Leaving it to Nature will yield what Nature has to offer. Reality shows us that Nature’s results are not what most of us prefer. We prefer control and manipulation to achieve healthy plants and wildlife as best possible, while at the same time continuing to provide an opportunity for that long-held, civilized existence of regulated hunting, trapping, and fishing.

If we prefer a healthy existence for our wildlife, someone has to manage and control it. Nature will not, contrary to what some believe, give us what we want in this civilized society. Taking from the resource in a responsible, scientific approach is a cooperation that undertakes the task of managing wildlife for a healthy bounty and providing opportunities for those who wish to take sustenance from that resource. It’s a win-win.

It seems with each passing year, the grumbles and groans get louder and louder of the need to end hunting, fishing, and trapping. As it currently stands, we exist in a back scratching situation where licensed hunters, fishers, and trappers pay the costs of wildlife management in return for an opportunity to reap the rewards of taking from the resource. To deny that privilege, thinking wildlife will manage itself is wrong thinking. To steal it away with a belief that wildlife will control itself is uncivilized, returning us eventually to the previous savage state.

The next time you see a hunter, trapper, or fisherman, thank them for providing the means of responsible conservation so that all of us can enjoy a healthy wildlife.

********

Today, a friend sent me a link to an article published at National Review called “Friends of Elmer.” In this piece of work, the author points out how the existence of the (perhaps second) oldest profession, hunting, has morphed into an act of apologizing and calling on all hunters, as was requested by the long-held magazine of hunting and outdoor activities, Sports Afield, “…for the sake of the hunting community, please don’t say anything about it on social media, and please, please don’t post any pictures.” This in regards to whether anyone was able to obtain a license to hunt a grizzly bear.

Another hunting magazine was quoted as saying, “We need to be very, very careful and intentional about what we post and what are in those posts.”

The author of the referred-to article writes: “The problem with that line of argument is that dead animals are necessarily front-and-center when it comes to hunting. That is, ultimately, what hunting is about — and hunters should not apologize for that. Hunting is one of the most ancient of organized human undertakings: Hunting, and not that other thing, may very well be the world’s oldest profession. And whether one thinks of it as sport or ritual — or simply as gathering protein — it is part of an honorable tradition, and a pursuit that can be, at its best, profound.”

Aren’t these actions of apologizing for being a hunter and for hunting, and the fear we are instilled with driving us to feel the need to apologize, just another aspect of this society’s regression toward a savage state? If, as has been stated, our society brought itself out of an uncivilized existent, to return to that is savage.

I witness repeatedly, fish and wildlife departments across the country living in fear of lawsuits from environmentalists and animal rights groups. I understand the concern but not the fear (or apologies) but are we to shed our responsibilities to manage, control, protect where needed, etc. wildlife because we fear a lawsuit?

The author says that the protests from people are “aesthetic” – a set of idealistic false principles guiding one’s every move, an almost “Keeping up with the Joneses” kind of existence. It also sounds a lot like the changing of our “Foundational Libraries” – the Power Structure‘s efforts to rewrite the foundational principles and morals that are the driving force of our cultural existence.

Partly because of fear of lawsuits, but mostly due to Environmentalism’s powerful outreach to brainwash (change the foundational library) the masses, this very disease has reached epidemic proportions in this country, as can be witnessed at any time in our society; apologizing for being a hunter. I guess it holds more moralistic and cultural value to proclaim your sexual orientation and expose your immoral behavior, along with your hatred and complete disregard for your Creator, than to admit you are a hunter.

If you are ashamed to be a hunter, feel the need to apologize, and believe that the North American Model of Wildlife Management is wrong, before you apologize for being a hunter, destroy your guns and never buy a hunting license again. Don’t be an apologist as some of our traditional hunting magazines, as well as many hunters, are doing. They are only doing the bidding for those changing our foundational structures while at the same time putting a noose around the necks of themselves and the long-held heritage of hunting.