Can You Teach A Fish To Walk?
by Tom RemingtonSeptember 3, 2010
Humor, they say, is healing. Humor can also carry hidden messages and metaphors, should we allow our brains to function beyond the shallow and often inane substance of an entertaining tale. The following story has some age, is entertaining, laughable but mostly it quite nicely qualifies as a tall tale and a damned lie. However, if as I say, you allow (that is if you have control of) your brain to function beyond the normal abeyance most find adequate, you just might discover hidden meaning. I mean not to upset your day.
Clarence Merrywether was paddling his canoe on a small but deep pond, mostly inaccessible to human traffic; only to those most compelled to get there. The morning was cool, quiet and the water calm with a glowing mist just above the water. The angle of the morning sun gave the mist an eerie depth giving pause as to what might be beyond. Clarence knew the pond well.
There was not another soul to be found. It was as though Clarence was the only one left on the planet. That soon changed.
Clarence stroked his paddle on his right side, never breaking the water, barely causing a ripple. He wished not to disturb the silence he so enjoyed. From somewhere within the depths of the water, a brook trout, of no more than 6 inches, jumped up and landed in Clarence’s boat.
Surprised, as you can image anyone would be, Clarence carefully got his hand around the feisty fish and gently returned him to the water. Before Clarence could resume his stroking posture, the same fish once again bounded from the pond and landed in the boat.
This time Clarence thought carefully and decided that fish must not be happy living in the pond. So, he placed the trout and some water in a bailing bucket Clarence kept in his boat and took the fish home.
Clarence became quite attached to that fish, so much so that he really didn’t want to leave the fish. As a matter of fact, he so much adored this little fish he decided to name him Tommy; Tommy Trout.
Clarence wasn’t content to just let the fish swim around in the tank he devised for him, so each day he would take Tommy out of the water hoping that he would get used to being out of the water. That way he could enjoy his company better and in a more human way.
Months passed and during that time Clarence taught Tommy how to live beyond the confines of a water-filled tank. It was quite amazing as Tommy learned to breathe, walk on his tiny little tail fins, he came to Clarence when he was called and was most fond of Clarence scratching him behind the head and occasionally to stroke his slender belly. He also learned to eat human food, his favorite being fried grouper.
It got to the point that Clarence and Tommy were together all the time. If Clarence went to town, Tommy would ride in the basket on the front of Clarence’s bicycle. Clarence and Tommy became icons of the small town nearby. People would gather round anytime the two would make an appearance, fascinated by the entire spectacle.
One day Clarence decided to go for a bicycle ride and so he readied everything and prepared the front basket for Tommy. The two peddled down the old dirt road that led toward the Miller Farm. Clarence knew a short cut that took them through the woods and over Alder Stream. There was a narrow, wooden bridge to cross and when Clarence and Tommy got to the bridge, one of the planks was missing from the deck of the bridge.
Thinking not much about it, Clarence sped up his peddling, knowing full well it would not deter him from his mission. But when his front tire hit the space between the planks, the resulting bounce of the bike flung Tommy from the basket and he landed in the brook and drowned.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
A Good Sign It Isn’t Going To Be A Good Day
by Tom RemingtonAugust 20, 2010
This photo was sent to me by a reader. Have you ever seen anything like this? Here’s to you!
Related Articles
Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?
by Tom RemingtonAugust 2, 2010
Looking for Colonel Sanders????
Related Articles
“It’s A Good Day To Whoop Somebody’s……”
by Tom RemingtonAugust 2, 2010
Ever have one of those days?
Related Articles
Brad Stine: Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit
by Tom RemingtonJuly 18, 2010
Clever and only one small step toward getting rid of the man himself. So, who will be the first to invent the Official Obama Remover?
Related Articles
Boosting Black Bear Blog Ratings
by Tom RemingtonJuly 14, 2010
I was just wondering this afternoon if I should try what has been recommended by at least one member of the Lamestream Media, to boost my ratings. According to Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, she says that Obama’s ratings are in the cellar because he hasn’t blamed George Bush enough.
So, if you came to the Black Bear Blog looking for something better to read and entertain yourself with, I’m sorry. It would be much better if it was not because of George W. Bush.
In all fairness, I think it only fitting that I provide reasons for this blaming Bush, even though Clift simply stated that Obama hasn’t blamed him enough.
Why blame Bush? He’s a cowboy; he can’t pronounce the word “nuclear” correctly (comes out “nucular”) or a few others; he sucks at speaking in public; he’s from Texas; he once was connected to oil; he married a woman; he’s still married to a woman (the same one);he parts his hair on the left side; he lives in Texas; he’s a republican…..well I think so. He claims to be and got elected running under the Republican Ticket; did I mention he lives in Texas?; he once owned the Texas Rangers baseball team (now that’s reason enough right there); he’s stupid and got into college only on his name; Dick Cheney was his VP; he’s a cowboy living in Texas. Shall I continue?
I know the list is long but I figure the longer the list, means more blaming which should result in higher ratings on my blog.
I need to go prepare for the Internet viral activities soon to follow. Which news network program should I accept an invitation to first? If this works I’ll write a book.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
“Counting Wolves” by Jim Beers
by Tom RemingtonJuly 14, 2010
Editor’s Note: Just when I thought Jim Beers couldn’t top some of the great articles he’s written, here comes a man after my own heart in the writing of a classic! Beware environmentalists. Hidden somewhere between the fancy Latin names and descriptions, might be found an insult. I present, “Counting Wolves”.
How to Count Wolves by Jim Beers
Upon my return from a recent speaking tour of the Pacific Northwest I have experienced a great deal of personal scorn and ridicule. Setting aside the references to my parentage and diminished mental capacities, there was only one accusation of substance shared with me by my detractors. That accusation concerns my assertion that you “can’t count wolves”.
In the past two weeks I have read several press releases by state fish and wildlife agencies that “their” state has (insert any ODD number in the hundreds here) wolves and that they will have government animal control agents and/or licensed hunters or trappers kill (again insert an ODD number in the hundreds representing oh say, 20% of your first inserted number). This, we are assured will “reduce the state wolf population” to a level that will allow big game herds to recover to huntable levels, for ranchers’ livestock losses to be tolerable, to assure human safety, to reduce dog
losses for those rural people still persisting to “own” or “use” dogs, and thus allow the “lamb” (i.e. rural residents) to lie down with the “lion” (i.e. environmental and animal rights radicals, government bureaucrats, and politicians).
You are now, dear reader, a certified wildlife biologist just like the new US Fish and Wildlife Service “Science Advisor” who is not only the “former Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Science Center” but also we are told “holds a Ph.D. in biology from Harvard University obtained under the direction of noted professors Edward O. Wilson and Dr. James M. Carpenter (now at the American Museum of Natural History). She has tremendous expertise and experience in invasive species control and the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Scholarly publications include articles on biodiversity, bird conservation, invasive species, entomology and pollinators.” Aren’t we lucky?
So, how do such wolf worthies count these wolves?
-Wolves do not gather in certain spots year after year (like wintering elk or deer or moose) so that you can count many of them consistently year after year and thus obtain a “trend” and approximate numbers.
-Wolves do not breed in the same areas year after year (like mourning doves or woodcock) so that listening for coos or “peents” (the description of the call of breeding woodcocks) on the same roads and time of year like the aerial count of wintering big game animals generates a trend and/or population “estimate” for purposes of setting seasons and limits next year.
-Wolves are not evenly spread out over the landscape at any time of the year. Unlike pheasants (don’t tell the new “Science Advisor” or she’ll be after them as killing every one of them is a moral requisite “May Gaia be blessed” since they are an “Invasive Species”) you can’t have certain mailmen on certain routes count them at certain times of the year to again generate a trend and population “estimates”. No, you can’t count wolves and the farther we get from those dark days when wolves were forced on rural America by government fiat in the 1990′s the less and less anyone will have any idea of how many there are or even where they are at any given time. As we shoot at them and try to trap them and otherwise bother them, the more nocturnal and the more secretive (like coyotes) they will become.
However, in the spirit of “cooperation”, “partnership”, “open-mindedness”, and “biodiversity” I have pored over the literature on wolves and lo and behold up until the advent of the Endangered Species Act people worldwide were counting wolves with all the exactitude of mathematicians. Throughout the Northern Hemisphere, rural people and governments were aware of how many wolves were present and they too reacted accordingly.
The following condensed description of this ancient method from the dim mists of time exposed my ignorance when I mentioned that “you can’t count wolves”.
1. Wolves were at desirable levels whenever you didn’t see any, hear any nor were you aware of humans, livestock, or game animals being killed or attacked by wolves.
2. Wolves were at undesirable levels (and therefore worthy subjects for plans to reduce or eliminate them) when:
Family members or community members were attacked and/or killed by wolves. Livestock was killed or scattered by wolves. Wild animals desired for food were disappearing. Dogs were being killed by wolves. Wolves were seen in or near human habitations.
Of course our forbearers were unaware of the disease carrying capacity of wolves but they knew how dogs brought diseases (where did they get them from?) into homes and to owners’ families so they generally kept dogs out of homes and NEVER kissed dogs or allowed them to lick faces, etc.
The need to reduce wolf numbers today in Europe is restricted by both animal rights laws (like in the US) and strict gun laws. In Asia, it is the lack of gun ownership and the lack of coordinated governments that care about rural residents.
In addition to the foregoing, my “research” into counting wolves revealed a startling discovery. For centuries, there were no humans offering the prattlings of current day wolf “biologists”, “lovers” and “defenders”. There is no evidence of the sort of “Harvard biology” heard today such as:
“Wolves were here first”.
“It was dogs”.
“Wolves only eat the old and sick”.
“You must learn to live with wolves”.
“Wolves are on the verge of extinction”.
“Wolves always” do such and such.
“Wolves never” do such and such.
“Wolves balance nature”.
“Wolves replace hunters”.
“Wolf numbers go down when there is no longer any ranches or game to hunt”.
“Wolves are important and even necessary elements of the ecosystem”.
“Children and the elderly and dogs out alone deserve whatever happens to them”.
“She (he) didn’t behave properly so the wolf attack was their fault”.
The lack of any reference to these New Age “biologists” and their “Science” in the literature merely confirms the specious claims of the Endangered Species’ radicals, bureaucrats, politicians, and their academic “partners”: what we have here is A New Subpecies. I must admit that my past belief that all this nonsense about “Subspecies, Races, Populations, Population Segments, and Distinct Population Segments” was anything other than bio/political chicanery was, like my belief that you can’t count wolves, evidently wrong.
I therefore rush to assert my discovery and as the first one into “the literature” I claim my right to name this new Subspecies. I hereby name her/him as Homo sapiens dufus of the Race urbanus, and Population americanus – Homo sapiens dufus urbanus americanus. She/he is found mainly in wealthy urban settings and she/he is easily distinguished by her/his calls that are silly nonsense delivered in semi-religious reverential tones. When observed for more than 5 minutes they are seen to be outspoken advocates of central (national or international) governments that they control and that rule by fiat enforced by oppression and force.
So I am greatly relieved that federal and state bureaucrats have this problem (that they initiated) so well in hand and that they know how many wolves there are. Oh and as far as this new Subspecies, I have put a “feeder” in my backyard and keep it stocked with suggested “emergencies” and international cooperators that can help them grow federal power and tax us all into penury for their own good and benefit. I keep my binoculars near the window and will hopefully be able to publish a paper soon about all the sizes and colors, etc. of these “bustards” that come to my feeder.
PS You (still) Can’t Count Wolves!
Jim Beers
14 July 2010
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan,
Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net
Related Articles
Want To Get Away?
by Tom RemingtonJuly 3, 2010
The author of this photograph offered no comment and the editor of this blog offers no ownership. However, I am told (if I remember correctly) there is an actual place named this somewhere in Alaska.
Milt Inman Photo
Related Articles
Nobody Can Be So Stupid
by Tom RemingtonJune 29, 2010
Well, aside from politicians! Probably many of you have already seen the email flying around the Internet claiming to depict a paragraph found in a San Francisco newspaper. A photo of that supposed clipping can found to the left here.
But here’s what it says, in case you can’t read it.
“To all you hunters who kill animals for food, shame on you; you ought to go to the store and buy the meat that was made there, where no animals were harmed.”
Related Articles
BP Attempts More High-Tech Method To Stop The Flow
by Tom RemingtonJune 27, 2010
