We’ve discussed here, here, here, here and here the United Nations-hatched idea of “rewilding.” This ridiculous notion of rewilding is popular in the U.S., but only in states like Colorado and Oregon who have proposed to ban all hunting.

The propaganda is so pervasive now that you can see it everywhere. We need to “save the planet” on a massive scale (TED talk). Why Britain needs a greener culture through rewilding. Punk rewilding, that has turned into a gigantic plant to rob farmers of their land, eat less meat, and a cash grab that creates pots of money from which underserving and lazy people can steal. Can Scotland become the world’s first rewilding nation?

They have big plans for this UN program. Oh, the UK is in love with this, but doesn’t that make sense to you? If you send your only real men out and neuter them by fighting over ball games and ignore the rape of little girls in grooming gangs, while you also invite savage Muslims into your country, it stands to reason that such a program would assuage the injured souls of the guilty. Even UK police officers used police cars to help traffic girls for Pakistani rape gangs – all for a salary and pension, plus a bit extra, I’m sure.

Learn to live and get along with disease spreading feral hogs. Learn to live with Coyotes who kill livestock, wait on deer to give birth and eat the young along with the placenta (every deer hunter knows this happens). Learn to live with having no children or pets when Coyotes or other predators take them away and eat them. Learn to live with bears that are a danger to humans.

All for make-believe problems that are better handled by humans.

It is as if the opponents of human management believe bears to be immortal, never to die except at the hands of human hunters.  This is a false, emotional, irrational belief structure. All predators die. Death by human hunter is overwhelmingly less painful than death without human intervention.

[ … ]

Managed human hunting has evolved an ethos where a prime value is the “clean kill,” which minimizes the suffering of the animal. Compared to being torn apart by a bear, starving to death, or lingering death by accident, death by bullet is quick and painless.

[ … ]

Humans can manage wildlife populations to achieve greater productivity than when they are not managed. Non-Gmanagement results in horrific swings between environment-destroying maximum populations and ghastly minimum population deserts devoid of most large mammals. Most of North America was managed by humans with varying degrees of success long before Europeans were able to establish and maintain a presence.  Human management aims for high, but not destructive, productivity.

There are more trees in America than when the settlers landed. The deer herd size is much larger now that wildlife biologists set tag limits to control the rate of expansion of the herd. Humans know how to do this. Let nature take its course, and herds starve to death, predators eat humans, and nature swings badly between the extrema as if on a pendulum.  This is the same reasoning that fights forest fires when we should be doing controlled, managed or prescribed burns.

I see all of this as the logical successor to the lie of anthropogenic global warming. So, let’s rehearse what Professor Mann did. He wanted to prove AGW was real, but there isn’t enough historical temperature data to do that. Hence, he wanted a positive correlation between tree ring data and temperature data (for as long as we had it).

But there was just one problem. The so-called hockey stick. The temperatures went one way (down) and the tree ring data went the other (up). He couldn’t prove his point unless he hid the real data by renormalizing the data to be equivalent. The rewilders believe the same lie – the earth is dying and needs saving. They all need a religion, and the earth fits the bill.

Man is become God, and in order to save the planet, we need to suppress human activity and reintroduce predator animals. But you see the paradox, don’t you? Nature is king, but in order to pull that off, humans have to interact with it. The paradox doesn’t occur or maybe doesn’t matter to them.

The silliest thing is the “punks” who want to make beer and be rewilders. Can you imagine a worse waste of a life than drinking beer all the time and pushing UN programs? These little boys should be eating meat, farming, hunting, and learning to be protectors and providers. If they believed in having families maybe their little girls could use the help to stay safe from the Pakistani rape gangs in England. Instead, they sound like little junior high school girls who found something to believe in to fill the voids in their souls after thinking hard about the fact that little girls were raped on their watch and they did absolutely nothing about it.

It isn’t clear whether we should hurl insults at them or pity them.