A very direct explanation of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. After watching this, you should be able to recognize that the goal is much bigger than wolves, hunting, fishing and trapping. We are just in their way. They are looking far beyond a group of vocal outdoor enthusiasts who enjoy hunting, etc.

This is a stark lesson.

Ok, where are the demented wolf lovers and animal rights idiots? Why aren’t they boycotting Volvo and raising a big stink of their portrayal of the “big bad wolf”. Sure, the wolf seemingly cowers and backs down from the ferociousness of the revving motor but doesn’t both of these images depict the wolf in negative ways that wolf lovers have for so long fought against, i.e. that wolves are loving creatures, not vicious and snarling as shown in this video ad?

Two things in play in our society today and one of them dominates all others. The second issue is that our society struggles to laugh at themselves and find humor in things where humor is intended to be found. The first and most dominant point of departure is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy reveals myriad things in a society, one of which is the manifestation of people’s incompetency to make legitimate judgements about much of anything worthwhile. Hypocrisy is dishonesty and when we exemplify that we are also showing the world our anger and hatred, all of which drives our bias.

A current example playing out in this nation is the joke telling dealing with the topic of President Barack Obama’s revelation that when he was a kid growing up in Indonesia he ate dog. Do rational people care about this beyond the obvious, that either the president’s family was poor and that’s all they could afford or eating dog was acceptable table fare?

Even though I think we as a people are losing our ability to laugh, I still believe that existing in a society that considers laughing healthy, we have always had a strong yen for humor. Once, every comedian and late night talk show host made gobs of money telling jokes about presidents. We all laughed no matter who was in the White House. Of course some presidents became better targets of the quipsters, mostly dependent upon what they did or said. I even recall impersonators like Rich Little, who struggled to impersonate some presidents and then got plenty of mileage from others, sometimes by just the simple way they looked or the tone and quality of their voice. Think of the actor John Wayne, who had a distinct walk and a voice to go with it.

Today, people too often tend to limit their laughter based on political bias. This is where the hypocrisy comes into play. A joke about George Bush may make some laugh and others not, taking offense that they are being made fun of or that somehow it’s not fair. If the same comedian told a joke about Barack Obama, the roles become reversed. Don’t misunderstand me here. This hypocrisy swings in all directions and the worst kind is that coming from those who refuse to recognize it for what it is.

Let’s also be honest, if that’s possible anymore. Barack Obama is half black and half white. We have struggled as a society to get beyond racism and bigotry and as such, I’m positive in my assessment that a lot of restraint has been shown in targeting Barack Obama for jokes out of fear of just what has happened; accusations of racism.

President Obama ate dog as a child. What’s wrong with that? I’ve written about eating dog in our history and that eating dog is still the cuisine of some societies. When President Jefferson sent Captains Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean, neither of the men or their expedition would have survived had they not eaten dog. But as humans, we are prone to make jokes about it, I think some because we are uncomfortable with talking about the subject, but mostly because humor defines us.

On the website The People’s Cube, an entire array of photoshopped pictures depicting President Obama eating or chasing after dogs with the intent of eating them, can be found.

On John McCain’s Twitter page he posted a photo of his son’s bull dog and ends his Tweet by saying, “I’m sorry Mr. President, he’s not on the menu!”

When asked at a press conference, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, struggled to answer the question as to whether the President was aware of all the jokes but he couldn’t resist making a joke about the jokes.

If you click on the link to John McCain’s Twitter page, you can read some of the comments irate people left to John McCain about his sick sense of humor.

But what about the hypocrisy? Recall, if you will, that not long ago, there were a lot of people very upset about the movie “The Grey”. Two issues played out here. The movie was about a plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Survival was key, i.e. finding food and prevent becoming food. The plot is about these survivors fending off a hungry pack of wolves. The first issue of outrage was that the makers of the movie dared depict wolves in a truthful setting; that they are bloodthirsty killers. The second issue is that the wolves they killed, they ate.

Hang on for a second. This is a movie! But yet there was still outrage. In addition, before filming of the movie began, the cast and staff tried eating some wolf meat in order to gain a better understanding of what they were up against. Doing so has “dogged” them ever since. (See what I mean?)

The point is there was outrage over this and I recall reading in several places among the media outlets, including Online, that people just did not eat dog. That our society (American) has never eaten dog, etc. etc. etc. This is what prompted me to dig back through the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals to recount all the times they not only ate dog meat buy preferred it over deer or elk. In addition this dog meat they ate, included domestic dogs they bought from the natives and coyotes and wolves they were able to kill during their journey.

The hypocrisy here is that while there was outrage that dogs were depicted as being eaten in a movie, there was no outrage at the disclosure that President Obama actually did eat dog as a kid. Instead, their biased anger is directed at those who chose to make jokes about it, seemingly now supporting the eating of dog….well, depending upon who did the eating I guess.

One can argue that most of these jokes originated from people or organizations that are working to elect a different president, but why is this all of a sudden different or deserve a different level of scrutiny? Campaigns bring out the worst in everybody.

What the reasons are that President Obama ate dog as a kid, I don’t know, nor do I care. I think some of the jokes are funny. I find some a bit over the top. I certainly can understand a person who adores dogs, finding offense in some of these photos and jokes. And I find the same level of humor disseminated the same way regardless of which side of the political aisle they walk on.

Tom Remington

The Daily Progress is reporting that a 120-pound female black bear that was infected with rabies, attacked two men working in a nearby area. One man killed the bear at point blank range with a shotgun loaded with bird shot. As I have come to expect, the usual talking points are tossed around to dispel any attempts of concern from people. Near the start of the report, an official from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF), said, “It’s almost unheard of,”.

Probably so but from my perspective I think a few more questions should be considered and addressed from a scientific perspective and not one based in emotions or the widespread desire to protect all animals regardless and in particular predators. Let’s examine some statements and, if nothing else, raise a few questions.

Authorities say they believe this is the first ever reported or confirmed case of rabies in a black bear in Virginia. I have no reason to doubt that assumption. Authorities warned people to “only become alarmed if the bears exhibit highly unusual behavior.” While good advice, bears and other animals can be rabid and not be displaying the obvious and unusual behavior this bear did. Officials should bring that point up.

We also read this statement:

But authorities doubt there are any more rabid bears out there.

And why not? Is their doubt based on current knowledge of what’s going on or are they relying strictly on any notion that there has never been another known case? Consider more statements.

Just to have one is really unusual, and it would be, I think, near impossible for another bear to have it.

In past history, this may be true. But, what if conditions have changed on the ground? What if some things that “naturally” may have overwhelmingly reduced any chances of a bear contracting rabies and the odds of that bear passing it on, have changed to increase those odds?

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries states, according to the article:

The most likely way for a bear to get rabies is, just as for a human, a bite from some other animal that’s already infected.

Logic would tell us that if the bear contracted rabies by being bitten by another rabid animal (VDGIF tells us that raccoons, skunks, foxes and coyotes and the leading culprits) that if those animals that normally contract rabies grew in numbers, the odds of the bear contracting rabies would increase.

Another statement by a VDGIF officials:

Bears are solitary most of the time, so they aren’t likely to transmit rabies to one another.

What if that “most of the time” got reduced to “some of the time” because of certain conditions, i.e. more bears, more coyotes, more racoons, etc.?

Officials, in attempting to explain away the event and downplay it, using information they received immediately from the dead bear, concluded, “It’s really unlikely that she [the female bear] was around any other bears.” I revert back to my previous claim that that level of unlikelihood diminishes with an increase in bear population. The conclusion appears to be based on their supposition that the bear was alone and that bears are usually alone, that the bear did not have cubs and that Virginia is not in the middle of breeding season. Are officials also not considering that there may be more rabies in other species? Authorities claim no increase in reported cases of rabies in other animals, but that doesn’t always tell the real story.

There’s certainly no need to cause some kind of panic here about rabid bears running out of the woods to kill people, but there are some facts people should consider, including fish and wildlife officials. Predator protection has become vogue in this country and worldwide. With this predator protection, populations of predators such as bears, coyotes, wolves, foxes, etc. increase. With an increased population the odds go up considerably for the spread of infectious diseases, including rabies, simply because the odds increase that these animals will run into each other more often.

Consider also that rabid animals’ behavior changes and they think nothing of attacking something for seemingly no reason; the bear attacking the two men are an example. A rabid coyote would think nothing of attacking a bear and spreading rabies. Odds may be slim but under the right circumstances, those odds can be significantly reduced.

In addition to the predator protection efforts by groups and individuals, people post their land and don’t want anyone on their property hunting and trapping. This causes increased populations of animals that will carry rabies.

Reduced numbers of hunters and trappers overall, combined with efforts from anti-hunting and animal rights organizations, adds to the increase in the numbers of all game species, often to unhealthy levels.

Each state’s fish and wildlife department, if they are doing their jobs thoroughly, will have a good handle on the conditions on the ground; that is if they ever get out of the office and in the field. If I were at VDGIF, I wouldn’t be spending so much time telling the citizens how rare it is for a bear to contract rabies. I would be considering that being that it is so rare, what’s going on that it happened?

Tom Remington

I suppose the subtitle to this would be, “Governor naked in his endeavor.”

I’m not sure where to draw the line here on what is intelligence and ignorance. I’ll leave that up to you.

*Editor’s Note* The statement below I received in the form of an email. I extracted what I believed to be the message behind candidate Robert Fanning’s future plans for fish and wildlife management and the protection of land rights.

While we weren’t looking ;how wildlife management has changed! Fish and Game Departments are no longer that despite the many , many billions of sportsmen’s dollars that sportsmen have poured into wildlife and the wildlife agencies entrusted to protect the game in our states. Montana FW&P needs to focus on the original constitutional and lawful intent of the creation of their department under the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the only one of its kind in the world. The model’s two basic principles—that our fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens, and are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever. As Governor my appointees , agency and relationship with the counties will have a creed; “People above predators”.. This creed will be enforced to cleanse our wildlife agency of agenda driven non -consumptive promoters who have had their way for far too long. The adherence to the creed and the success of the fish and game department can only be measured by the return of the Shiras moose, the restoration of big horn sheep numbers, and healthy elk and deer herds based on multiple standards in each traumatized district adhering to 50 year averages from the brink of wolf caused near extinction. This will be a condition of employment on a going forward basis for our game managers who will be mostly native Montanans Schools of higher learning pump out individuals who don’t know or respect the North American Wildlife Conservation Model or our Montana values that I memorialized and had codified in 2005 HJR 029

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Our customs , culture, traditions and values are guaranteed in NEPA the National Environmental Policy Act which is the governing law above the Endangered Species Act. Due to a decade of flawed , fraudulent science as a result of court delayed wolf control we are now in a wildlife emergency state . As governor I will declare that emergency. The counties and / or the governor can intervene with the law squarely on their side in this extreme additive predation emergency state and restore the egregious damage done and threat to: public health, commerce, public safety, private property, game herds, livestock production and pets done by extreme wolf densities in what was promoted before wolves were released as a “non -essential experiment”.

Congress has breached the public trust with it’s failure to define the mission of the USFWS. Since Congress has failed to do their duty and has created a forced wolf based “reintroduction” extreme predator density state of emergency in Montana. The county commissions and or the Governor must declare that state of emergency and take action to protect our game like the Shiras moose and big horn sheep which are destined for extinction themselves as well as our $237.6 million per year hunting industry{as per the USFWS 2001} . Rivalli County recently quantified that an out of state hunter used to spend on average $10,600 when he came to hunt in Montana to hunt.

The Endangered Species Act is for saving species from extinction, NOT for letting the USFWS and Marxist progressives take over the country in compliance with the first plank of the Communist Manifesto and the UN’s Agenda 21 . It is time to stop the “Distinct Population Segment” charade which is about controlling land and people. The “historic range” scam allows the USFWS to extend “recovery” further afield than ever imagined or was promised to the courts, Congress or provided for in the pre wolf “reintroduction” science and it’s profoundly flawed computer model. “Wolves for Yellowstone Vol 1,1992″ was the deal that was promised when the recovery plan was built; then, through litigation and it’s stall tactics, a bait and switch was crammed down on the entire American west .The bigger issue is “historic range” where the wolf was fraudulently used allowing “Distinct Population Segment” into an American nightmare. “Expand to the entire former range” is a full frontal assault on the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The problems are very real and escalating on a geometric basis.State and federal bureaucrats are aggressively obstructing with policy and withholding funding for lawful lethal wolf control when A.P.H.I.S attempts to control problem wolf packs . Sport hunting and the myth of epizootic disease controlling wolf population growth is scientific fraud.

To defend private property , the cornerstone of a “free enterprise system”, we must bifurcate the laws, attitudes in agencies and enforcement differentiated between public and private lands.There is a big difference between sport hunting and predator control.

My Administration will make it’s policy clear between sport hunting on public lands and predator control on private property , in defense of private property. Land owners will not be required to seek permission, fear prosecution, or be confined by licences or bag limits.Land owners will be given wide discretion to determine the need for lethal predator control., the staff of professionals that he needs to control wolves and the methods of taking problem wolves on his private property. This means that there is no such thing as “fair chase” on private land. Those engaged in predator control must be allowed to operate during all hours , not just daylight. Electronic or other calls can be used, illuminated optics, artificial light, night vision, sound suppressors, bait,same-day fly & shoot.

Experienced wolf hunters and trappers in defense of private property will be trained in protocol , terms standards and conditions and given a blanket open licence jointly granted by the DOL & FW&P as they pursue as agents , the defense of private property. The harvested hides and pre-specified internal organs will be taken into custody from each harvested wolf and turned over to the state of Montana who will test for Echinococcus granulosus and 28 other diseases that wolves are vectors for and make those results a matter of public record so disease mapping can begin in real time and make all this information available to Montana public health officials and the Center for Disease control so Montana health care providers can make accurate diagnosis and treat Montanans if and when there is a risk. The state will, after the hides and organs are examined , send those hides for tanning and resale into the marketplace or returned to the control agent who will be paid with his choice of either the tanned hide or $1,000 per wolf taken on private property.

The narrative in this video is in French but if you watch the video you get the idea of the troubles these guys are having.

In three minutes and 12 seconds, this video is an absolute disgrace to the human race. It is crammed full of every conceivable lie any wolf loving, cult worshiping, idiot could ever repeat. 100% propaganda in which nothing the guys pukes up out of his mouth can be proven scientifically. This is so bad, it is almost criminal. NBC should be ashamed for giving this moron airtime……but it is NBC.

This video is so bad, it deserves the rare and not so coveted, Black Bear Blog Golden Horse Excrement Award.

One of the complaints residents of the Northern Rockies region have had since the introduction of Canadian grey wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area and Central Idaho is that the rules are always changing, or as has been described far too often, someone keeps moving the goal posts.

Granted, the wording found in miles of sometimes seemingly senseless bureaucratic drivel, says that deference be given the Secretary in making decisions and changes and those changes should be based on “best available science”. Unfortunately “best available science” has also become a political football.

It appears that now, with some inroads being reached by those demanding stricter controls over grey wolves, wolf advocates are attempting to move the goal posts yet again. The impression is given that this is another attempt at public persuasive propaganda, where “best available science” becomes a session of human interaction and sensitivity training. One Ph.D. wants to survey people about how wolves should be managed and find out how the feel about it; the best available science of feeling?

Through email exchanges, I’ve discovered that Jeremy Bruskotter, a PhD at Ohio State University, began seeking participants for his survey. The copy of the inquiry letter is printed here:

Dear study participant,

We are contacting you because you expressed an interest in wolf management policy and a desire to participate in future research related to wolves. As a participant in our previous study, we’re interested to learn if and how your views on wolf conservation and management have changed since gray wolves were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes states last year.

Please note: We have greatly reduced the length of the prior survey. This survey should only take about 5 minutes of your time to complete. Also be aware that your participation in this study is voluntary. Should you choose to participate, you may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop, there will be no penalty to you. All information gained in this study will be kept completely confidential and at no time will this information be connected with your name.

If you agree to participate, please click the link below to proceed to the survey.

CLICK THE LINK TO PROCEED TO THE SURVEY:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FJHJ1r_2bAH_2bh4MTcTEwOXpw_3d_3d

Thank you for your time and participation!

Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD

As one might suspect, some people began questioning all aspects of such a survey. Robert T. Fanning, a gubernatorial candidate for Governor of Montana, responded to Dr. Bruskotter with a bruising and factual email, in which Fanning takes Bruskotter to task of his lack of knowledge of historic fact concerning the entire grey wolf introduction. Fanning wrote:

Jeremy,

In 2000, I, we, {FOTNYEH} paid a total of $17,000 for three consulting Ph.D’s, one of which was Dr Robert Taylor, Ph.D ,who, among other duties, reached out at my direction and appealed in writing to Mike Phillips of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, and the federal biologist in charge of the YNP introduction to bring all the “stakeholders” represented by Ph.Ds from both sides to the table and participate in the “adaptive management” process so a wildlife cataclysm could be avoided and the economic , customs, culture and traditions mandated by NEPA of those States impacted by forced wolf “reintroduction ” could be represented transparently and equally.

Phillips replied in writing on TESF letterhead and essentially told Dr Taylor to “stick it where the sun don’t shine”.

As the next governor of Montana I will introduce that letter as evidence in litigation seeking restitution and restoration for the harm done by Turner, Phillips et. al. and their bad faith dealing..

Now 12 years later you want to take a vote on “management”? The “deal” was 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone National Park over a 10 to 20 year period; now you have “concerns” about “statutory obligations” with over 4,000 or 5,000 wolves reproducing at a 30% rate.?
You’re joking , right Jeremy?
Who is paying for this “study” that is 12 years late ?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

I wrote this and other Montana and Idaho legislation http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Mr. Fanning makes reference to the “deal” in his email response. Just over one year ago, I wrote a two-part series about “The Deal”. This should help readers to better understand exactly what Mr. Fanning is referencing when he questions Dr. Bruskotter’s request in surveying residents.

Understand as well, that it seems that Mr. Bruskotter makes reference, according to the response from Mr. Fanning, that now with the present management policies in place for wolves, i.e. they are hunted and trapped in some states, there should be concern for abiding by “statutory obligations”. Fanning’s reference to “The Deal” is all the statutory obligations that were presented to the people prior to wolf introduction and those wishing wolves in every dooryard, didn’t seem to have much concern about abiding by these so-called statutory obligations.

By hand selecting only those obligations that fits one’s agenda, has contributed significantly to the constant moving of goalposts making it impossible to properly manage and control the species. With years of historic statutory obligations tossed aside to achieve personal agendas, now that things are seemingly not going the way of wolf proliferation, those who disregarded the rules, like a spoiled child, once again are demanding rule changes.

Tom Remington

One of my most favorite coined phrases by Dr. Valerius Geist is “intellectual rubbish”; something he once used to describe the efforts by some to sell natural balance or the balance of nature as viable. The same phrase, intellectual rubbish, can just as easily be applied to the efforts of those who attempt to convince people that predators, like the grey wolf, only kill the sick and lame of prey species and as such are the authors of healthy prey populations. This is intellectual rubbish, as well as completely dishonest.

Wolves are opportunistic hunters. In other words, they take what they can when they can. That isn’t to say that a wolf isn’t smart enough to recognize a badly limping deer or elk and from a few years experience has learned that they are easier to catch. However, the idiots who perpetuate the dishonest fable about killing only the crippled and sickly, present their theory to people in a manner that leads them to believe that wolves are so highly evolved intellectually, they always are aware that they are killing only those animals that “need” to be killed to keep a healthy prey species for next time.

The question I have is this. We have learned that wolves carry echinococcus granulosus worms and pass this on to elk, deer and moose. We’ve also discovered that when this occurs, hydatid cysts develop, sometimes very large ones, in the lungs, the result of which can seriously restrict an ungulate’s ability to escape the danger of predators. Are these same highly intelligent wolves capable of diagnosing hydatid cysts where highly skilled human doctors cannot?

In a recent news article in the Kansas City Star, a woman who represents the Defenders of Wildlife in the Northern Rockies where overblown populations of wolves exist, made the following statements. (Warning: If you are eating or drinking, please clear mouth and throat before reading.)

“In some ways wolves are benefitting elk in that they’re the only predator that actually culls disease and other illnesses from those herds,” Stone said. “So genetically over time, wolves actually improve the overall health of elk populations.

“So the wolves should maybe be charging Idaho for their services.”

The wolves are doing such a good job, it appears they are taking no chances. Probably due to fear, the wolves are killing all elk just to make sure they haven’t left any diseased or lame animals behind.

This person needs a rubber room. It’s this kind of crap sandwich that gets shared so often in the media that people actually believe this stuff to have truth in it. Not one word uttered here is factual. Not one! I say let’s bring in a half dozen of these wolves, give them a stethoscope and a white robe and put them to work “culling diseases” from humans.

I don’t like to place photos or cartoon sketches of other people’s work on my websites without permission. However, in the Critter News about a week ago, there appeared the below cartoon. The author’s name and signature are on it. Having seen this cartoon, I thought it only appropriate that I share this with others and perhaps if someone knows Ms. Stone, who promotes disease-killing wolves, she would appreciate a copy as well.