Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another example of the Deep State Minor League Division.
I have had occasion to come into contact with numerous Maryland Wildlife Conservation officers (game wardens). Mostly in my former role as a Hunter and Firearm Safety Instructor but also in the field as a hunter.
Roughly half of the ones I've been in contact with are anti-hunting.
Now those people will move up the ranks to the level of policy making at some point and will enforce their anti-hunting agenda when developing regulations. We saw it the last couple years with the federal waterfowl bag limits. Although USFWS authorized a bit longer season and an increase in limits the ones Maryland adopted were lower, and in the case of the season length, shorter than the year before, which was historically short.
How on earth is getting a promotion and trying to save wildlife if that's your thing, "deep state"?
You say that's roughly half. So the other half do believe in hunting and will also move up the ranks and try to influence hunting laws their way. Is that also "deep state"?
How on earth is getting a promotion and trying to save wildlife if that's your thing, "deep state"?
You say that's roughly half. So the other half do believe in hunting and will also move up the ranks and try to influence hunting laws their way. Is that also "deep state"?
You missed it. Totally. The job of WCO's is not to "save" wildlife, especially in an environment where hunting is a legitimate management tool (unless you want to see deer die of starvation and don't mind whacking them with your car).
Would the pro-hunters move up? Maybe, but bureaucrats tend to reflect the upper management. Who do you think is in charge?
You missed it. Totally. The job of WCO's is not to "save" wildlife, especially in an environment where hunting is a legitimate management tool (unless you want to see deer die of starvation and don't mind whacking them with your car).
Would the pro-hunters move up? Maybe, but bureaucrats tend to reflect the upper management. Who do you think is in charge?
And how did upper management move up?
Like everyone else, right?
Maybe there are more park Rangers who want to protect wildlife, would that be so weird?
Are you really trying to tell us a secret cabal of multimillionaires puts forest rangers into management positions in order to nefariously protect animals?
Or are you just angry that not everyone feels like you, so if they don't, it must be deep state?
Another example of the Deep State Minor League Division.
I have had occasion to come into contact with numerous Maryland Wildlife Conservation officers (game wardens). Mostly in my former role as a Hunter and Firearm Safety Instructor but also in the field as a hunter.
Roughly half of the ones I've been in contact with are anti-hunting.
Now those people will move up the ranks to the level of policy making at some point and will enforce their anti-hunting agenda when developing regulations. We saw it the last couple years with the federal waterfowl bag limits. Although USFWS authorized a bit longer season and an increase in limits the ones Maryland adopted were lower, and in the case of the season length, shorter than the year before, which was historically short.
Great example of a Deep State agency.
The agency tasked with assisting and regulating hunters, gets infiltrated by animal rights advocates who oppose hunting and push their agenda to sabatoge hunting rather than regulate it.
This is what happens when government agencies get hijacked by ideologues who oppose the agency's mission. Since they are civil servants, Directors can't get rid of them when the agency goes astray.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 08-09-2023 at 06:51 AM..
Maybe there are more park Rangers who want to protect wildlife, would that be so weird?
Protecting wildlife also means managing wildlife.
Managing wildlife means managing the ecosystems in which wildlife exists.
In a normal ecosystem, there would be no large deer herds because natural predators would keep the deer population in check.
The absence of natural predators results in larger than normal deer populations which are destructive and harmful to other wildlife in that particular ecosystem.
By protecting deer you are killing other wildlife.
You obviously know nothing of Yellowstone. The wolves were killed off. The herds of buffalo, bison, deer, elk, and moose exploded in size and worse than that, they gravitated into huge giant herds that sat in one spot and overgrazed the vegetation.
They were killing trees and destroying grasses that protected the river and so the river was being destroyed.
They brought the wolves back to Yellowstone and the wolves immediately went to work thinning the herds.
But more than that, the giant herds broke up into numerous smaller herds.
And, more than that, those herds became highly mobile. They no longer stay in one place destroying everything. They nibble and move on giving trees and grasses time to grow and regrow and now the river is protected again and starting to return to normal.
So, those Liberal do-gooders might think they're protecting deer but they're destroying everything else and ruining all the tributaries in the watershed feeding into rivers, so the harm Liberal do-gooders do is far-reaching.
Jan 13, 2017 — The wolves changed the rivers in as much as they readdressed the lost balance within the region, one we had created when we exterminated ...
Wolves are causing a trophic cascade of ecological change, including helping to increase beaver populations and bring back aspen, and vegetation.
The story of how wolves changed the course of the rivers of Yellowstone National Park is a story that shifts the narrative of how nature itself works.
There’s no option for someone like me who exists more on the authoritarian/anarchy scale than the liberal/conservative scale.
Anyway…the deep state to me is real in the sense that there’s both a lot of bureaucratic inertia and it’s so raggedly wild that nobody can really hope to keep a lid on all of the nooks and crannies where some of the most questionable decisions are made.
Independent unaffiliated but yes it certainly looks like a Deep State exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
