February 17, 2019

Open Thread – May 14, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not directly related to the content of articles published on this blog. Thank you.


Open Thread – May 12, 2012

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


Seriously Busted!: The Final Nail in the Coffin That Destroys a Fabricated “Hockey Stick” Graph on Global Warming

“Hide the Decline”, became a catch phrase a couple years ago, when leaked emails began to surface that seemed to implicate certain climate scientists and research facilities who purposely withheld specific climate data in order to fabricate a graph that would show a steep increase in global temperatures over the past 150-200 years.

Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick Graph” became the most famous as the media and others scarfed this up as proof that man was destroying the planet and serious things needed to be done. Almost everyone fell for it.

It has taken a lot of time and effort but finally all of the needed information has been collected to once and for all prove that climate scientists intentionally removed specific tree growth data for the purpose of producing a false result that would wrongly influence climate science and arm the political parasites looking to exploit for profit.

If you read nothing else on climate science and global warming, please read the Bishop Hill Blog. This story is detailed and carries the complete chronology from beginning to end. This IS the smoking gun.

As you will see in the graph below, the black ink represents Michael Mann’s infamous “Hockey Stick”, like the one portrayed above. This represents the result of cherry picked data in order to produce a graph that looks exactly as this one does. Along with this black ink is also green ink. The green ink in the graph depicts what it would look like if all the data intended to be used in the research had been used. As you can see, there is an unmistakeable difference.

Tom Remington


Open Thread – May 11, 2012

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


More Killing of Bald Eagles To Make Room For Environment Destroying Windmills

It’s official. The world, right along with the United States, has gone freaking mad. Consider, if you will, that in wind power projects, developers have to apply to the Department of Interior to get permitted for the “incidental” killing of bald eagles, “from both the construction and ongoing operations of renewable energy projects”. These permits, as they are with other permits of their kind, are good for 5 years.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the Department of Interior has a formal proposal to allow such granted permits, only for renewable energy projects, to last for 30 years.

From the reader who sent me this link, he says, “Depends on whose ox is being gored here doesn’t it.” And here’s an example of what is meant. In Maine, the state has been trying unsuccessfully for several years to get a like kind permit, called an “Incidental Take Permit”, for Canada lynx. This permit would release the state from liability for trapping Canada lynx unintentionally. Overwhelmingly nearly all incidentally taken lynx are released unharmed. Bald eagles get sliced and diced from windmill blades.

Maine cannot get a permit for this and the result is a seriously hampered effort by trappers to kill coyotes. Not only are coyotes killers of Canada lynx, but they are also destroying Maine’s white-tail deer herd.

It would therefore appear to me that the U.S. Government is very much willing to risk the killing of more bald eagles to protect their wind power projects, that have been proven as environmental destroyers but turn their backs on the biological needs of fish and game agencies to be able to properly manage wildlife.

What obvious two-faced belligerence!

Tom Remington


Who’s Interested in Adopting a $51,000 Wild Kitty Cat?

There were once 59 feral cats, of the house cat variety, that lived on a government-owned island near Southern California. $3 million plus was spent to trap and remove all 59 cats making the felines now worth about $51,000 each. We are told that once the captured kitties are acclimated to humans, they will be put up for adoption. I wonder if you’ll have to pay the capture fees in addition to shots, etc.

Have we lost our minds?


Open Thread – May 10, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not relevant to the content of articles published on this blog. Thank you.


In Maine: Youth Hunting vs. Rebuilding a Deer Herd

The state of Maine has a bit of a dilemma. One one hand, efforts are and have been underway to develop programs to get kids out from behind their computers and electronic devices and into the woods to hunt, fish and trap. On the other hand, that’s a difficult thing to accomplish when there aren’t any deer to hunt. By the way, save the talking points about how great the turkey and grouse hunting are and other small game. The fact is deer hunting is the most popular hunting activity in Maine.

George Smith, administrator of the blog, GeorgeSmithMaine.com and former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, writes that a proposed rule change to allow Maine’s youth, on Youth Day, to kill antlerless deer in zones where no permits are issued, is a “controversy brewing”.

How big of a controversy remains to be seen but here’s a look at some of both sides of the issue. On the Saturday before the regular firearms season for deer opens in Maine, there is a Youth Day for hunting. This Youth Day was formulated as part of a plan to encourage kids to hunt. A special day, just for them, set aside before the regular season, when deer aren’t so nerved up and timid, in which underage hunters, accompanied by an adult, could venture into the woods to hunt and follow all existing game rules.

Beginning during the 2009 deer season, the awarding of “Any-Deer Permits” was ended entirely in many of the Northern, Downeast and Western Mountains regions of Maine – 18 Wildlife Management Districts all together. This was due to a collapsing deer herd. The taking of doe deer in these zones has been prohibited since and this included Youth Day hunting as well.

Part of the dilemma is that if we cannot recruit at least enough new hunters to replace the retired and dead hunters, participation will drop and with this decline, license sales also wane which in turn reduces necessary funding for wildlife management.

With the proposal to change this rule that will allow for the taking of antlerless deer in those zones where “Any-Deer Permits” are not issued, will it have a measurable impact on efforts to recover a depleted deer herd? In addition, will not allowing youth to take antlerless deer impact recruitment of new hunters?

As far as the new rule proposal goes, we can only make somewhat of an educated guess as to what kind of impact this will have on kids. I would think that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) would have some license sales data that would show what has happened to youth license sales since 2009 when “Any-Deer Permits” were cancelled.

From my own experiences in covering hunting nationwide, historically when major events occur, especially those where hunting opportunity has been significantly reduced, the first year sees a marked decline in license sales but then seems to recover. I don’t know if this same dynamic would apply here but it is something to consider.

Aside from concerns of youth recruitment, the other side of the controversy is whether Maine should be allowing the killing of doe deer in these zones where the deer herd is at or near unsustainable levels. Whether some or any taking of doe deer is problematic depends upon who you talk to. Let’s look at some numbers.

The Youth Day deer harvest is one issue to consider. Bear in mind that the readily available information on the MDIFW website is limited. I only have total youth harvest numbers and am forced to do some of my own calculating based on past histories.

The last year that youth were allowed to take antlerless deer in now restricted zones, was 2008. The youth harvest for that year was 509. Moving on to 2009, the first year of the restriction, the total youth harvest was 330. According to MDIFW this drop was entirely attributed to the restriction of taking antlerless deer in much of the state. Move ahead to 2010 and we see a youth harvest of 440, a 35% increase over the previous year. And then in 2011 that same harvest saw 537 deer taken.

As I said, I don’t have any breakdowns of this harvest. Bear in mind that the harvest numbers comprise all deer that can be legally taken. So, for example, in 2011, of the 537 deer taken by youth, we have no idea how many were adult and of what sex and how many were fawns and of what sex.

While MDIFW attributes the reduction in deer harvest for youth in 2009 on the restriction, I’m not convinced that it was a big a drop for that one reason. One would have to examine how many antlered deer were taken on Youth Day in 2007 and compare that with antlered deer on Youth Day 2009.

Youth hunters aren’t restricted to antlerless deer. If they don’t have the option to take an antlerless deer, those who hunt anyway, while they have a reduced chance of bagging a deer, will change their hunting strategies and probably time in the woods in hopes of bagging an antlered deer.

But all this number crunching isn’t answering the real question of whether or not changing the rule will have a measurable effect. Can we assume that in order to help answer that question, we would need to know just how many doe deer did or would be killed if the rule was changed? So let’s look at 2008 and attempt to make some historical comparisons in order to arrive at a figure that might be usable.

Bear with me as I will have to make a certain number of assumption. 509 deer total were killed on Youth Day in 2008 and 330 in 2009. That’s a total of 179 deer statewide. MDIFW says this number is, “primarily due to the prohibition on taking antlerless deer in bucks only WMDs.”

Not knowing precisely what “primarily” means, then let’s, for the sake of argument, say that in 18 of Maine’s Wildlife Management Districts (WMD), which include all of northern Maine, Downeast and the western mountains, 179 total deer were taken by youth in 2008. Looking at the harvest numbers for 2009, 2010 and 2011, it would appear to me that because total youth harvest numbers continue to climb, the popularity of Youth Day has gone up, and/or the available deer to harvest has increased, among some other things.

Once again for the sake of argument, if total youth harvest statewide has increased since the antlerless restrictions by approximately 38%, then let’s increase that number, 179, by 38% in an attempt to be fair and as realistic as I can. With that, I might be able to project that if youth were still allowed to take antlerless deer in those 18 restricted WMDs, that 179 number would grow to 247 deer – that is if all this were relative and we know they’re not. Stay with me as I don’t think the numbers are so greatly different.

If youth were taking 247 deer on Youth Day in what is now restricted WMDs, what would the harvest data look like? In other words, of those 247 deer, how many would be adult does and adult antlered males and how many would be male and female fawns? We can only guess by making another assumption that perhaps this dynamic would resemble that of the regular statewide harvest; at least to arrive at a usable number.

In 2011, a total statewide deer harvest was 18,839. Approximately 69% of that harvest was antlered bucks, 23% were adult does and 8% were fawns. If we use the same percentages on the 247 deer in my projected harvest by youth, we would see about 170 would be antlered deer, 57 adult does and 20 fawns.

Let’s be realistic. This percentage will be to some degree skewed because hunting conditions vary so greatly throughout the state and youth hunters, I think by nature, tend to take the first and easiest deer they can. Am I wrong?

If that’s the case, then the chances that the youth would not exactly follow statewide trends in the killing of fawns and does, and would probably up those percentages. Would it be realistic to say that 60% of all of the deer that might be taken in these restricted zones were adult does and fawns? Let’s say 150 deer (60% of 247) taken that day would be either an adult doe or a fawn. How do those numbers compare? State average indicates there would be twice as many adult does as fawns. If so, then 100 of those deer would be adult does of breeding age mostly. 50 would be fawns. Historically, birthrates for fawns is roughly 50% male and 50% female.

In my long and drawn out calculations (and I apologize), 125 doe deer would be taken in 18 WMDs. You’ll have to decide whether that is a significant number or not, whether it will limit deer recovery and how much and is it of enough value compared to new hunter recruitment to stick to the current restrictions.

I know that my calculations will get some of you ramping up your own number crunching and I encourage it. However, before you do, let me offer you this bit of information that I got from Lee Kantar back in April of 2008. Lee Kantar is Maine’s lead deer and moose biologist. I had asked Kantar about buck to doe ratios during a series of emails. Here’s what he said in one of those and then I’ll offer some more comment:

If you had enough buck hunting pressure (which occurs in other states) that works out to 70-90% annual buck mortality and combine that with little to no doe hunting (combined with good survival, in other words-little to no winter mortality) the most you could skew the sex ratio would be 5 does to 1 buck. IF you met those conditions. In northern Maine, annual mortality on does can be in the mid 20’s and higher. This combined with poor recruitment not only stagnates population growth or causes a decline, but in combination with actual annual buck mortality, it sets up a scenario for buck to doe ratios being between 1.1 adult does to adult bucks to 2 adult does to adult bucks. As we have talked about, does and bucks use habitat differently, forage differently, and those bucks get pretty smart and savvy about using cover.

I will not attempt, again here as I have done numerous times, to explain the math of ratios. What I will do is offer what’s on the ground with what Mr. Kantar said for your comparison.

Kantar spoke of 70-90% annual buck mortality. Does northern Maine and other portions with extremely low densities of deer have a buck mortality this high? Some would argue yes! We know that in these restricted zones, there is no doe hunting. The winter survival has been decent the past couple of years in many of these zones and with the exception of two years, pretty good over the past decade or so.

If these conditions exist in Northern Maine, where there is or approaches 70-90% buck mortality, no doe hunting, etc. then a buck to doe ratio might exist that is 1:5 as indicated by Lee Kantar.

I never got one question answered that I had asked. That was, if there was a 1:5 ratio, would all the does get bred? Over the years I have gotten differing opinions on this from scientists. It seems agreeable that with a skewed ratio like this, too many does would get bred late resulting in late fawning, that presents its own set of problems.

And then we are left with that same old argument most of us have also heard from MDIFW that closing hunting would be senseless because a certain percentage of deer are going to die anyway during the winter.

Can we now ask if 125 breeding does, taken by youth, spread out over 18 WMDs, going to stop or harm the deer recovery? Your call.

Tom Remington


Teddy Roosevelt’s Odd Perspective on Hunting, Storytelling and Grizzly Bears

Some time ago, some good friends bought me a book for my birthday. The book is called, “Theodore Roosevelt on Hunting“. And shamefully I must say I am just getting around to reading it.

As is the case most often, we as Americans tend to idolize past iconic figures. I suppose each of us has our own individual perspective on Theodore Roosevelt, but most of us are guilty of placing people like him on a level perhaps a bit above being a normal human being, capable of errors, poor decision making and having faults. When we take the time to read personal writings that include accounts of his life, it does offer us a chance to see someone in a different context than the one history has painted for us. Teddy Roosevelt was only human and as much as one might or might not enjoy his storytelling, it seems that he had some unusual views on others who told stories and what I would say was a near bizarre concept about the grizzly bear.

Early on in his book, Roosevelt writes about hunting grizzly bears. He begins by recalling some of his own experiences with hunting the big bears; interesting enough. But then he gets into an odd sort of protective proclamation about grizzly bears and how they have been wrongly labeled as vicious by exaggerated storytelling but then uses his own storytelling (exaggerated?) to label the bears as vicious, still claiming them not to be.

One of the last grizzly bear hunting stories of his own personal account he tells us is of a time when having shot at and wounded a bear, it turned on him. Roosevelt then goes on to write:

This is the only instance in which I have been regularly charged by a grisly. On the whole, the danger of hunting these great bears has been much exaggerated.

I’m not sure I understand what he means by “regularly charged”. I’m still pondering that.

Roosevelt justifies his claim that grizzly bears aren’t dangerous to hunt by telling readers that, “At the beginning of the present century”, (that would be early 1800s) grizzly bears were an “exceedingly savage beast” that would attack a man “without provocation” and that was because there didn’t exist the modern equipment that Roosevelt was using, which has evidently taught the bear to run in the other direction. Roosevelt describes it as: “he[grizzly] has learned to be more wary than a deer, and to avoid man’s presence almost as carefully as the most timid kind of game.”

But did it really teach the bear to run instead of charge or was this merely Roosevelt’s perspective of the temperament of a grizzly bear that, for whatever the reasons, he felt compelled to project?

In his book, Roosevelt pretty much appoints himself as an expert on grizzly bear hunting and behavior while doing his very best to discredit anyone’s grizzly bear story that he might not agree with.

Hence men of limited experience in this sport, generalizing from the actions of the two or three bears each has happened to see or kill, often reach diametrically opposite conclusions as to the fighting temper and capacity of the quarry. Even old hunters – who indeed, as a class, are very narrow-minded and opinionated – often generalize just as rashly as beginners.

I wonder if, in Roosevelt’s elitist mind, obviously placing himself in a class of hunter above all others, he felt the same way toward those “narrow-minded old hunters”, when he became one? He obviously didn’t recognize himself to already be one.

Not only, it appears, has Teddy Roosevelt appointed himself the lone grizzly bear hunting expert, he lays claim to be the only one qualified to tell a hunting story. In the thirty pages that Roosevelt appropriates for telling his grizzly bear hunting stories, ten of those pages he dedicates to ballooning his own self-importance with his self-proclaimed authority on grizzly bears and dumping on anyone else with a grizzly bear story to tell I assume because they were not as intelligent as he was.

But oddly, which brought me to audible laughter while reading this chapter, Roosevelt takes 20 pages to retell all the grizzly bear stories he has heard and they are all about hunters being attacked by grizzly bears; some of those attacks being unprovoked. And if that isn’t enough, he also tells tales of humans not hunting and being attacked by grizzly bears unmolested. I guess whether a grizzly bear story is exaggerated or not or tells of grizzlies being vicious or not depends on who is spinning the yarn.

I suppose how often people were attacked provoked or unprovoked back then was all relative and therefore, someone like Teddy Roosevelt could easily state that grizzly bears have no interest in attacking a human. He appears to have had some issues in dealing with “old hunters” and accepting stories or even companionship from some of the “outdoor men” of the time and region.

Don’t take me wrong. There is much in what Roosevelt writes that comes directly from his own experiences of what bears do during certain circumstances. This information was useful then and probably would be useful today if there was any grizzly hunting in the U.S. I wouldn’t, however, be too quick to disregard the other tales from the rugged outdoorsmen of the day. As tall as some of those tales might be, there is always a certain degree of truth in all of them.

I did find it interesting to discover this part of Roosevelt, what in my opinion appears to be a bit of haughtiness on his part – but wasn’t the bully Roosevelt a haughty person anyway?


Public Informational Meetings Regarding Waterfowl Hunting Zone Line Modifications

Two public informational meetings on the potential to modify the current waterfowl hunting zone lines have been set for Sidney and Bangor, Maine. Adding a third, coastal zone and moving the current North/South zone line further north will be considered.

The Sidney meeting will take place Monday, May 14th, at 6:30 pm at the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife office at 270 Lyons Road.

The Bangor meeting will take place Wednesday, May 16th, 6:30 pm, at the Bangor office located at 650 State Street in Bangor.

Results of the survey that was taken in March will be presented as will draft dates for comment on the proposal. Comments and discussion with those in attendance will also take place.

This is all leading up to the formal proposal for the Migratory Bird Hunting Season that will be advertised during the rule making schedule this summer.