February 1, 2015

Coyotes Take Down and Kill Horse

“A group of five to six coyotes entered the paddock area and attacked the horse while it was eating. The horse was brought to the ground during the attack.”<<<Read More>>>

In the comments section of this article, a person identifying themselves as Jim Schmidt, a retired Federal coyote hunter, says: “The experienced ones that will train others do need to be removed. All of the coyotes involved in the horse attack need to be removed so they will not do it again or train others to do it. Please do not listen to inexperience “so called or self appointed experts” in this case. They clearly do not know what they are talking about anyway. Coyotes will kill and eat your pets, big or small, they will eat your apples, your vegetables, birds, mice, rabbits, your deer fawns, quail, ducks, and will bite your children and grand children. Do not wait for this to happen; do something about it! Coyotes are a dangerous predator that should not be taken lightly! Guard property, pets, and livestock and protect your children and grand children! Jim Schmidt

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Open Thread – Saturday, January 31, 2015

Taliban

Taliban = “Armed Insurgency” We won’t negotiate with terrorists but we will “armed insurgents.”

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

65% Of Maine Moose Hunters Successful

A Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine — Despite brief warm spells during both the September and October moose seasons, 65% of all moose hunters harvested a moose last season.

With 3,095 moose permits issued, 2,022 hunters were successful in getting their moose. Hunter success rates varied throughout different regions of the state with over 80 percent of the hunters getting moose in Wildlife Management Districts 3 and 5 in Aroostook County and under 10 percent of hunters getting a moose in WMDs 23 and 25 in Waldo and Knox Counties.

The 65% success rate for hunters is lower than the 73% success rate for hunters in 2013.

“Weather certainly played a factor,” said IFW’s moose biologist Lee Kantar. “Moose tend to travel less and spend more time in cover when it’s hot. Hunter effort also declines.”

Maine’s moose season is split into three segments with six-day seasons in September, October and November. Temperatures were above 80 degrees on the first day of the season in September, and despite a cool start to the October season, warmer weather in the 70s prevailed during the middle of the October season.

“We expect to see a higher success rate in September, as moose are more receptive to calling,” said Kantar. “But in WMD 3, only 79% of the hunters were successfully in September compared to 91% in October.”

Kantar also added that there are fewer moose on the landscape than in previous years.

“Looking at the survival data from our radio-collared moose last year, we know that winter ticks during the winter of 2014 had an impact on moose,” said Kantar. “It was an impact that was likely above normal, somewhat similar in its impact to a tough winter on deer.” As a result, the department decreased the number of permits available to moose hunters.

The radio-collar moose study is just one aspect of the department’s ongoing research on Maine’s moose.

IFW is currently in its fifth year of conducting aerial surveys to estimate moose abundance and population composition (composition of male/females; adults/calves). The aerial surveys provide data used to estimate the moose population and health of the herd.

During the moose hunting season, biologists also examine teeth to determine a moose’s age, measure antler spread, monitor the number of ticks a moose carries and examine ovaries in November to determine reproductive rates.

Biologists are set to recommend moose permit numbers for the fall 2015 moose season. The number of available moose permits is based upon population numbers and the composition of the moose population in wildlife management districts, as well as the population goals and objectives for that district.

In Washington, Some Mourn The Arrival Of New Fish and Game Director

UnsworthMore than forty years have passed since the real growth of environmentalism in this country began and as a result, we are now witness to the second and third generations of post-normal, conservation wildlife scientists, presenting little hope for sound or consumptive wild game use.

To rousing ovations of many in Idaho, their deputy director of the Fish and Game Department (IDFG), Dr. Jim Unsworth, departed the Gem State to take over the head seat at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). To many in Washington, who have been following the wolf introduction disaster, seeing Unsworth as their new director is worse than a Tippecanoe curse. But obviously to the committee that selected Unsworth, he was their match made in heaven.

Should Washington residents fear Unsworth’s selection by committee, “a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW”, because it was a terrible choice? There were eight candidates and that field was narrowed to four, ultimately opting for Unsworth. For some this makes their skin crawl.

More than likely there probably wasn’t anybody any better or with different values to choose from. A true “Manchurian Candidate” would have been trained specifically for one purpose. In this case and cases all across this nation, the “Manchurians” are products of a “Manchurian” education system. The rigged system was created to pump out candidates just like Unsworth. It’s nearly impossible to escape the result. The same rigged system was designed to produce members of committees that will select candidates from the rigged system. And finally, the rigged system forms the masses to follow blindly along. In truth, most people just don’t know what’s going on.

From the years that I have covered wolf and other wildlife issues in the state of Idaho, I’m not sure I recall a statement made in a government document that upset outdoor sportsmen any more than one that Jim Unsworth was a part of. In a 1993 document, Elk Management in the Northern Region: Considerations in Forest Plan Updates or Revisions, a report completed by Unsworth and two other colleagues, it reads:

We recognize now that elk are part of a bigger picture and that elk habitat management must be placed within the context of ecosystem management, biodiversity, State management strategies and goals, and shifting public demand and interest that now embrace nonconsumptive and consumptive interests.

Sportsmen often pay lip service to such issues as fish and game departments catering to environmentalists and their desire to end hunting, trapping and fishing, but when we see it put to writing that the paradigm is and has shifted toward non consumptive wildlife management, it’s enough to make maggots climb a small, thin rope. Dr. Valerius Geist calls “ecosystem management” with the goal of “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity”, as “intellectual rubbish.”

The reality is that Dr. Jim Unsworth is perhaps a second generation product of post-normal wildlife management taught to him by such conservation romance biologists as Dr. James Peek. Yes, America is witness to the fruits of its labor. While outdoor sportsmen enjoyed time in the wild, away from the hustle and bustle of the nasty world now comprised of “changing the way we talk about wildlife”, the nasty world made the change that took place and it appears it has taken the introduction of wolves, forced onto the landscape of human settlement to give some pause to ask how that all happened. Isn’t it just a bit too late?

In my newest book, Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?, I spend a great deal of time explaining how American citizens were sold the biggest con job until Obamacare was thrust upon us much in the same manner. I’ll talk more of that in a moment.

Jim Unsworth was a student of Dr. James Peek. If you want a greater understanding of what Unsworth was subjected to as a student of wildlife management, try reading this and this.

However, the likes of the new-science, wildlife scientist shouldn’t come as a surprise. We were warned about the coming destruction. In The Outdoorsman, Bulletin Number 47, Jan.-Mar. 2012 edition, editor George Dovel subtitled his central article as: “Review What Has Happened Since 1990 When the IAFWA Hired Bird-Watchers and Other Predator Preservationists to Replace Public Hunting in North America.

Dovel writes:

The Washington, D.C. – based international group that once represented the interests of state Fish and Game agencies by lobbying Congress and the President for them, is now their master. Although it chose to drop the word “International” from its name in order to sound “more friendly” to the North American hunters and fishermen it once supported, the “Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies” even added the State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China to the long list of federal agency members it represents.

In 1990, IAFWA hired non-hunting bird watcher Naomi Edelson to establish non-consumptive wildlife
recreation as all state F&G agencies’ number one priority. This shocking violation of the law in many states was ignored by commissioners and biologists.

In July of 1990, IDFG Research Biologist (now Deputy Director) Jim Unsworth wrote a 1991-95 elk plan based on the IAFWA directive which blatantly violated Idaho Wildlife Policy in Idaho Code Sec 36-103. That 74-year-old law clearly states that wild animals, wild birds and fish within the state of Idaho shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated and managed to provide continued supplies for hunting, fishing and trapping.

Yet the introduction to Unsworth’s Elk Plan said:

“Although this document is called an Elk Management Plan, it is really the plan of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (hereafter called the Department) for managing the many and varied impacts of people upon wildlife and wildlife habitat.

“…The Department believes the greatest return to society from the wildlife resource occurs when the
maximum variety of products is provided and that maximizing a single product (e.g., harvest) is not
necessarily desirable. We will encourage and promote nonconsumptive use of elk.”

We also get a glimpse into a few things upon examination of an interview Unsworth did in 2009 for Idaho Public Television.

Based on information provided in this interview, Jim Unsworth must have been with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game around 15 years, when he told in his 2009 interview that:

The day they brought them [wolves] in, I was in the Middle Fork with some other Fish and Game folks. We were counting elk and deer, and we had just finished up for the day, and we were on the Thomas Creek airstrip, and getting ready to head back to the cabin and have dinner. All of a sudden a bunch of fixed wings started landing, and here they were, dropping wolves off. None of us that were there counting elk even knew that this was going to happen.

Seriously? As much national attention as was given the introduction of wolves into this region and a 15-year biologist, who eventually became deputy director, didn’t know this was going to happen? While champagne was being uncorked, employees of the IDFG knew nothing? There must have been some very big secret being kept under wraps. I wonder what that could have been? (wink – wink)

And there was this:

And so, I remember sitting there on the airstrip with some of the guys I was working with, and we’d just spent a week counting –- looking at one of the most remarkable elk herds in the world, and looking at these wolves that they had dropped off.

And as a biologist, I was thinking, Whoa, this will be interesting! I mean, we have an incredibly abundant food source here, and a new top predator, and I wonder what’s going to happen.

I’m guessing that as little as Unsworth claimed he was aware of wolf introduction and what was going to happen to the elk populations, those behind the introduction were lying like well-worn rugs in a house of ill repute, claiming they knew wolves wouldn’t have any impact on elk herds.

In this interview, Unsworth sounds as though he is pretty balanced in his outlook and perspective on wolves and wolf management and maybe even wildlife management in general. However, if you pay attention, you will read indications of his personal perspective of non consumptive wildlife management. It appears as though, even as he might be passing himself off as a hunter, he doesn’t really care if those hunting opportunities are taken away from hunters. He prefers to address the issue by stating that the elk moved and it’s up to the hunters to change their habits.

You will also read this:

Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life, for lots of people. That’s where they get their winter’s food. A lot of people don’t understand that, that are back east watching. They like the idea of wolves, and how everything’s happening out here, but I think they miss the people part of this whole equation. They miss the impact that these wolves are having just on local guys wanting to go out, recreate and feed their family for the winter. People miss that.

Which brings us back to the remarkable con job of wolf introduction. I’m sorry Mr. Unsworth but it wasn’t just those people “back east watching” that didn’t care one iota that, “Elk is such an important part of the fabric of our life,” not one little bit. Again, in reference to my book, Wolf” What’s to Misunderstand? I point out that every human element in the discussion of the impact of wolves in the Environmental Impact Statement was deliberately left out. That was in 1994 and this interview was in 2009 and evidently in that 15-year period, he and others like him still haven’t caught on.

The only real important issue about wolf introduction and present wolf management IS the human element. As Unsworth even points out, why did officials in 1993 deliberately avoid having to seriously address those elements?

But that is the power of new-science, post normal, wildlife management, brainwashing. It matters not whether there exists any scientific evidence, all based upon the scientific model that once worked pretty darn good. No, it’s now all about outcome-based science, developed and passed on by “change agents” whose minds were filled with idealistic nonsense and they believe it. This is the rigged system. What we are seeing is nothing more than a product of that rigged system.

Perhaps Unsworth was the best choice for Washington; a clone with all the right talking points. Those who sit on the governor’s hand-selected committee to vet a new director, I’m sure were all selected with the same principles that George Dovel told us were underway; that wildlife management would be done by bird watchers and environmentalists who are more concerned about kicking us off our lands and “their” lands, while managing for scarcity, than they are about real wildlife conservation with abundance for all.

It will not be until we, as a society, figure out how the progression of these “propaganda fantasies” started and how to stop it, that we can once again find fish and game directors, and a staff full of real biologists, that understand the difference between truth and fantasy.

If you figure out how to stop it then the challenge will become how do you re manufacture the clogged mands?

Foreign Troops Will Run American FEMA Camps

“It is laughable that some in the independent media is still in denial about the existence and true nature of concentration camps in America,commonly known as FEMA camps. The evidence is overwhelming and from certain documents we can ascertain how “detainees” will captured and transported to these infamous FEMA camps.

“The purpose of this article is to demonstrate, that from the government’s own documents, it is child’s play to demonstrate the nature of FEMA camps in term of who is going to be running these camps.”<<<Read More>>>

On Maine’s Legislative Slate: An Act to Ban Bear Trapping and Hounding

According a tidbit found in the Portland Press Herald, a bill may be proposed in the Maine Legislature that would ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs.

…lawmakers also are gearing up for potentially contentious policy fights over environmental and outdoor issues, including a measure to ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs following the failure of a referendum in November that also sought to ban bear baiting.

I’ve not researched this bill and I don’t even know what the language is contained in the proposal. It would seem that the chances of a passage of a bill of this kind should be slim to none. The people of Maine spoke quiet clearly in November at the polls and let everyone know that they really preferred for wildlife management to be handled by those at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

I am hoping the bill never sees the floor of the Legislature.

HSUS Will “Accept” a “Threatened” Classification for Wolves

This is the leading paragraph in a news story found in the Star Tribune:

Animal protection and environmental advocates in Minnesota and nationally have informed federal regulators that they would accept a reduced level of protection for wolves in order to avert a congressional effort to remove all protections for the species.

<<<Read More>>>

I do understand that these are words of the reporter and author of the article and not directly those of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or any other environmentalist group. However, the question I would like to ask is who in the hell does the HSUS think they are that they can TELL federal regulators what they will and will not accept? Who died and left them in charge of all things environmental.

The message I would have for HSUS I will not put to print…thank you.

Isn’t it just a bit too late? This move is an obvious sign that the environmentalists are running scared envisioning an act of Congress that would spoil their party. Too bad and too late! You pushed and you pushed and you pushed. Always demanding and taking more. NEVER GIVING! Now it is time to pay the fiddler.

I am not an advocate of managing wildlife with politics but I am hoping that Congress comes down hard on this issue and not only prevents wolves from any longer being needlessly protected but takes away their gravy train of lawsuits. Color me vindictive.

Perhaps the chickens are headed toward the roost in the hen house.

Bill Whittle: Number One With a Bullet

Oregon Officially Has Enough Wolves to Remove State Protections

Will they?

Don’t hold your breath.

“Protections for Oregon’s gray wolves could be rolled back after wildlife biologists counted more than four breeding pairs in eastern Oregon for the third straight year.

“Under the state’s wolf plan, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission can consider removing the eastern packs from the state’s endangered species list once that population bar is met.”<<<Read More>>>

RMEF Welcomes goHUNT.com as New Conservation Partner

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—goHUNT.com is the newest sponsor of RMEF Team Elk, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s television show.

“RMEF is excited about this new partnership,” said Steve Decker, RMEF vice president of Marketing. “We appreciate that the goHUNT.com staff recognizes and supports our mission to ensure the future of elk, elk country and our hunting traditions.”

“We are proud to support RMEF’s cause to showcase how conservation benefits not only elk and their habitat, but elk hunters as well,” said Lorenzo Sartini, goHUNT.com president. “Their show provides viewers with great video content while conveying a valuable message to all hunters of ensuring that the heritage of elk hunting and family traditions are protected and passed down for generations to come.”

goHUNT.com is a unique media platform designed to help hunters stay in the know of what is going on in the world of hunting. The website provides its readers with wildlife news and politics of the Western states as well as articles to help hunters in the field through tactics and strategies ranging from gear, scouting, animal behavior, and species tactics among other topics.

“Hunters know how important it is to stay up to speed on trends, populations, permit and tag deadlines, and other newsy issues. We believe this partnership will be a benefit for our members and for those who tune in to watch Team Elk,” said Decker.

In addition to its online content, goHUNT.com features an INSIDER program of expert hunters and technologists who offer a product that includes satellite mapping and imagery, unit specific weather and temperature trends, unit specific species genetics, seasonal behavior, harvest success and tag quota trends to give hunters full understanding of hunting units across the West. Other benefits include hunt and gear giveaways and 10% off landowner tags.

“In a changing world, goHUNT.com understands the importance of conservation and what it means for the future of hunting. Conservation and respect for the wildlife lay at the core of our beliefs, so our partnership with RMEF and Team Elk is a natural fit,” added Sartini.

RMEF Team Elk airs every Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., Wednesday at 1:00 a.m., Thursday at 10:30 p.m., and Saturday 11:00 p.m. (all times ET) on Outdoor Channel.

Presented by Cabela’s, RMEF Team Elk is also sponsored by Archer Xtreme, Browning, Buck Knives, Danner, Eberlestock, Flextone, Grizzly Sleeping Bags, Montana Canvas, New Holland, PEAK, PSE Archery, Sitka, Yamaha, YETI Coolers and Zeiss.