October 22, 2019

Lies by Wildlife Experts Repeated by Ignorant Media

The Christian Science Monitor has an article about the 19 elk that were slaughtered by wolves at a feeding ground near Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It is full of lies and ignorant repetitions, all void of any sort of journalistic effort to find truth…as they claim is their “responsibility.” (Note: Odd isn’t it that when someone tries to shut the Media up, they scream First Amendment, citing their responsibility to seek out the truth and report it to the people. And yet, they seldom practice anything that resembles the reporting of truth. All they are interested in is protecting their free political platform disguised as The Press.)

Here’s a breakdown of some of the things written in that article:

First, was this: “If you like wolves, you call it surplus killing,” said US Fish and Wildlife Service Northern Rockies wolf coordinator Mike Jimenez to the Jackson Hole Daily. “If you don’t like wolves, you call it sport hunting.”

This just simply is not true. I am more inclined that the reason Jimenez opted to recite such nonsense is to perpetuate the divide and hatred between people in what most see as a wolf love/hate relationship. The existence of the false paradigm that people either hate wolves or loves wolves, is one of the reasons nothing constructive can be done, especially with dialogue to resolve negative wolf issues. But isn’t that just the way it is intended to be?

It matters not whether you like wolves, hate wolves, worship wolves or want to kill all wolves, wolves often kill far more prey than they ever intend to eat. For anyone to send up a huge distraction such as giving the event two names and pinning those names on one side of those who “like” wolves and those that “don’t like” wolves, is not only irresponsible but indicates a bent toward other sinister objectives.

Second, we read: “Wolves leaving such a large killing uneaten in a single night is unusual..” No, leaving a large kill scene without eating it is common and is an integral part of the existence, instincts and survival of wolves. It’s what they do. It is more than dishonest to attempt to cover up this reality and is irresponsible to print it in the Media in order to mislead or propagandize the masses.

Third, we observe this contradiction: “Mr. Jimenez said the spring snows may have weakened the elk herd, or perhaps the wolves were hungry at the end of winter and simply didn’t stop.”

If the wolves were “hungry” because it was the “end of winter” then that would be reason to understand that the wolves would have eaten their prey. They didn’t. They only killed! Get it? This is a typical tactic used as a way of convincing the public that the wolves did nothing wrong. Always protect the wolf. Always put down the man.

Fourth: “Since wolves usually kill only what they need to eat, the unusual hunt has spurred debate about wolf management.” 

This is yet another attempt to substantiate the criminal action of protecting a large predator that takes and threatens private property as well as the safety of the people. Wolves don’t “usually” only eat what they kill. That is established scientific evidence. They are opportunistic killers. Then when the Media echos the B.S. calling the wolf hunt “unusual,” followed by the lie that this “unusual hunt” is what spurs on debate about wolf management, we see the effort to protect the wolf. What spurs on debate about wolf management is corruption that existed at the time the wolves were illegally introduced into the Greater Yellowstone region, using money stolen from the excise taxes collected from outdoor sportsmen who thought that money was going to be used to enhance game, habit and opportunities, not on programs designed to end it all.

What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the continued lying, cheating and stealing that goes on with the Federal Government and their NGO partners in crime.

What spurs on the debate about wolf management is the endless onslaught of lawsuits that steals money from taxpayers and exposes the corrupt judicial system that crawls in bed with the environmentalists to carry out their large predator protection programs for the purpose of destroying private property rights and the right of people to grow food, be happy and eke out a living.

There are far, far bigger things that spur on wolf management debate than wanton, wasteful, mass-killing of prey by wolves. Surplus killing by wolves is no more unusual than the amount of disease that they spread and the cross-breeding with coyotes, domestic dogs and other hybrid canine animals.

Fifth, is this misleading statement: “Ranchers are gradually accepting that the wolves are there to stay…”

This is propaganda at its most obvious. If the media repeats this often enough, people actually begin to believe it to be truth. They want to believe. That’s what they have been programmed to want.

Are ranchers really accepting the wolf? I’ve not seen that. As a matter of fact, I see just the opposite. I see more and more ranchers organizing to fight against the protection and perpetuation of the destructive wolf – a creature that is a huge threat to the livestock industry. I see them demanding of their Congressional representatives to do something about controlling the numbers of large predators. I see them calling B.S. on the fake “compensation” programs that the public has been lied to about. Ranchers are NOT willing to accept the wolf and go away defeated by a bunch of perverted animal lovers, so ignorant they can’t recognize that they are destroying themselves.

During the process that led up to the illegal introduction of wolves, Ed Bangs, the government puppet who undertook the sales job of convincing the people wolves would be good and were necessary, said that the future of the wolves depended on the social acceptance of the nasty animal. If that is true, then why have the environmentalists done everything in their power to ensure and perpetuate a great divide between the wolf worshipers and everybody else?

When wolves, or any large predator, moves in and destroys livestock, there’s little good that can be said about the assailants. Nothing being done to stop the attacks (don’t be fooled to think that any stock grower is equitably compensated for any losses) is not a formula that will foment good public relations with the wolf.

The short of it is that for the environmentalist, it is never enough. If there were 100,000 wolves in the Lower 48, that wouldn’t be enough. If every livestock item was destroyed by wolves, that wouldn’t be enough. The bastards lied to us right from the beginning…and that includes the government liars. There was never any intention to stop protecting wolves when they reached 300. There is no intention to ever stop growing wolves, as there is never enough for them. Man must go. Wolves must grow. Wolves are one tool that destroys American heritage.

Share

Video: Results of Wolves Sport-Killing Sheep

Share

Hybrid Wolves Slaughter 10 Deer

“When he got to the scene, he witnessed two wolves killing his deer.

Ten of his 57 deer were killed before he shot and killed the wolves to stop them from killing his deer.

USDA trappers came to pick up the wolves, which they called “hybrid” wolves.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Wolves in Maine in the 1800s – Part III (First Recorded Attacks on Humans)

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI

The book, Early Maine Wildlife – Historical Accounts of Canada lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603 – 1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving, is proving to be an interesting addition to my library. I think the authors did a decent job of putting this information together; one, to make it readable, and, two, to give a reader a sense of the changes taking place across the lands over extended periods of time. I am glad they chose to list the entries in chronological order. Of course these changes come with no real explanations from the observers, often just recalling what it used to be like.

In 1860, J.G. Rich writes in the Bethel Courier about his hunts for caribou. He also explains that he has shot and killed two caribou in the previous 6 years and then states, “many hunters from different parts of the State have told me that the species [caribou] are almost extinct in Maine”. Obviously Rich wasn’t into conservation of wildlife, which most of us know came a bit later on after it was decided something needed to be done.

Henry David Thoreau relates the reports he got from lumbermen and hunters in the mid-1800s through the late-1800s. In 1858 he writes, “The lumberers told me that there were many moose thereabouts, but no caribou or deer.”

It was in 1860 when M.R. Keep told the tale of when the French first settled in the Madawaska area in Northern Maine, along the St. John River, the Indians got angry because the French were killing their moose and caribou. The story goes that the Indians, out of spite, slaughtered all the moose, and, “For twenty years or more, not a moose was seen or heard from in all Northern Maine or the adjoining borders of New Brunswick[.]”

However, wolves were still an often talked about species. Thoreau often spent time “listening” throughout his travels in Maine to hear the wolves howl. While people howled about the threats and utter destruction the animal caused.

It was in 1855 that C. Hardy wrote about what he knew of the grey wolf.

“The gray wolf (Canis lupus) has but lately made its appearance in Nova Scotia, not as in other provinces, however, in company with his prey, the Canadian deer (Cervus virginianus). The gray wolf is a large, fierce, and powerful animal. In Maine and New Brunswick, several instances have been known of his attacking singly and destroying a human being. This animal sometimes grows to the length of six feet. The hair is long, fine, and of a silver grey. A broad band of black, here and there, showing shiny silvery hairs, extend from the head down the back. The tail is long and bushy, as the brush of a fox. A wolf skin forms a frequent decoration for the back of a sleigh.”

This is the first I have read in this book (although I am barely past page 100 of 500) of reports of wolves attacking and killing people. I should point out that in reading accounts of wolves beginning in the very early 1600s, most descriptions of wolves up to this point related that they were wary of humans and for the most part steered clear. While there were also reports of some savagery of wolves on livestock, the number of those reports paled in comparison to the accounts of how the wolves feed on available wild prey, such as deer, moose, rodents, etc.

At this juncture, it appears that we may be actually seeing a pattern take place. As the reports from observers seem to be passing on the reduction of game animals and in some cases the lack thereof, i.e. the extinction of the caribou, incidents of livestock kill and now reports of attacks on humans are on the increase.

In 1842, Z. Thompson, in his “History of Vermont”, writes about “The Common Wolf”.

“For some years after the settlement of this state was commenced, wolves were so numerous and made such havoc of the flocks of the sheep, that the keeping of sheep was a very precarious business. At some seasons particularly in the winter they would prowl through the settlements at night and large companies, destroying whole flocks in their way, and, after drinking their blood and perhaps eating a small portion of the choicest and tenderest parts, would leave the carcasses scattered about the enclosure and go in quest of new victims. Slaughter and instruction seemed their chief delight; and while marauding the country they kept up such horrid and prolonged howlings as were calculated, not only to thrill terror through their timorous victims, but to appall the hearts of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. Though sheep seems to be their favorite victim, wolves sometimes destroyed calves, dogs, and other domestic animals; and in the forest they prey upon deer, foxes, hares and other such animals as they can take. Impelled by hunger they have been known in this state to attack persons.”

Here is another account of attacks on people. And also notice that the indicator in the statement about attacks on people is, “Impelled by hunger”. If the accounts being recorded have much accuracy at all, we see that for what may be multiple reasons, the prey base for wolves is diminishing. This increases the incidents of livestock depredation and attacks on humans. I believe it only correct to make that assumption, knowing what we do about wolf behavior.

In addition, this account of Thompson’s, gives us our first glimpse into surplus killing or sport killing that protectors of predators such as the wolf and coyote so readily deny. Thompson describes the wolves’ actions as being anything but savage and pointless. Why has it been 150 years before these kinds of reports are showing up?

I am curious as to whether readers are surprised to learn of these incidences by wolves in Maine – their savagery of livestock and attacks on humans? I would guess they are, as they have been indoctrinated to believe that there has never been an attack on a human by wolves in the lower 48 states. These early observers and recorders of wildlife from the early 1600s, seem to have a differing set of facts.

Share