February 21, 2019

The Moose “Down on ‘M’ Street”

I wonder if the moose here in Alaska think that “M” Street, means “M”oose Street?


Photo by Al Remington

Share

Open Thread – March 12, 2012

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

Share

Occupy Occupy D.C. Wind Turbine to Memorialize Dead Birds, Despoiled Land

Washington, D.C. – A mock wind turbine will be erected Monday, March 12 at noontime in Washington, D.C.’s Freedom Plaza to highlight the threat that wind, a celebrated alternative energy source, poses to the American bird community.

“If I was a bird, I’d be an angry bird right now,” said David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research and director of the National Center’s “Occupy Occupy DC” project. “Countless innocent birds that only want to be with their eggs die every year from crashing into wind turbines. The environmentalists who promote wind energy at the expense of the birds are green pigs!”

Monday’s event is part of The National Center for Public Policy Research’s “Occupy Occupy D.C.” events at Freedom Plaza. The National Center obtained a five-week permit from the U.S. Park Service that forces the Occupy D.C. encampment to share the park between February 12 and March 15.

A report by the National Research Council estimated that wind turbines kill approximately 100,000 birds every year. The American Bird Conservancy claims the number could be triple that estimate — affecting the songbird community most of all.

“At some point the slaughter of birds and bats by taxpayer-subsidized wind turbines is going to trigger serious legal action,” added National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. “If the full force of the Migratory Bird Treaty and the Endangered Species Act were brought to bear on these unsightly killing machines, investors would turn their backs on this artificial industry in a heartbeat.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank with over 100,000 recent supporters. Contributions to it are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Winter Time: Ninilchik, Alaska


Photo by Al Remington

Share

Open Thread – March 10, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not relevant to posts on this blog. Thank you.

Share

Months in the Making, Maine’s Deer Harvest Numbers Finally Made Available

While Maine hunters still can’t comprehend why it takes over 3 months to tell them how many deer got killed during the past deer hunting season, most have forgotten, perhaps conveniently, that there was a deer season.

However, today the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has made available deer harvest information.

Total 2011 deer harvest amounted to 18,170. This compares to 20,063 from 2010. For those wanting to know and something MDIFW didn’t seem too eager to publish in their report, that’s a decrease in deer harvest of about 9.4% from the previous year. That in and of itself might not sound all that bad but when you realize that this year’s harvest was half what it was in 2000, it further drives home the point that Maine deer hunting stinks. It’s been in a downward spiral for many years and the past three years are not indicative that anything is going to change in the foreseeable future.

The numbers are not unexpected but pathetic regardless. In MDIFW’s written report, it seems the department is quick to point out that any reductions in deer harvest from last year to this year are all the result of the reduction of “Any-Deer Permits” issued. Of course the harvest report isn’t the place to discuss this issue but the question still begs to be answered; what has MDIFW been doing for the past decade that it got to a point it had to make such drastic cuts in the allotment of Any-Deer Permits?

Are we now supposed to accept that with 2 of the past 3 winters being relatively, to exceptionally, mild and a drastic reduction in Any-Deer Permits, Maine hunters will soon be back to the glory days of deer hunting? Let’s hope so but true deer rebuilding will not happen until the state gets a handle on their over grown and over protected predator populations. Sorry, but in my opinion no hope and change global warming and/or reduction of Any-Deer Permits in Southern Maine, is going to do squat for Northern Maine.

Tom Remington

Share

Open Thread – March 9, 2012

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

Share

Lake Hood, Alaska

This is Lake Hood, Alaska. These planes are shoveled out and have skis on. Just before Ted Stevens Intnl. Airport is Lake Hood. The mountains are the Chugach Range, southeast of Anchorage.


Photo by Al Remington

Share

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Restructuring

George Smith provides readers with his assessment of the new restructuring plan for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife that has been talked about for so long.

Share

Designating Predators as “Big Game Animals” is Counterproductive to Game Management

Most state’s fish and game departments are required, either through constitutional regulation or legislative mandates to manage game species for surplus populations to provide harvest opportunities for the citizens. This was something that was learned shortly after the turn of the twentieth century when unregulated and commercial hunting reduced game populations to levels that became dangerously close to unsustainable.

The establishment of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation became the foundation of how states should view fish and game species and manage accordingly.

Through history, fishing, trapping and hunting, while never specifically referenced in the U.S. Constitution, were to most people, an inalienable right. It was never questioned that people would always hunt and fish and who would have thought that one day they would be prohibited from participating in these special and necessary activities. Unfortunately, as with most rights, people seem to find pleasure in appropriating one person’s rights to bolster the agenda of their own special interests.

The idea of fishing, hunting and trapping was founded in the need and want of people for sustenance. Our inappropriately twisted society has systematically gone about convincing the masses that hunting, trapping and fishing are a “sport”, some kind of perverted activity to kill innocent animals and that there is no longer a need or want to fill one’s freezer. After all, there are grocery stores. With this manipulation of minds, over time our fish and game departments have become infiltrated with those who think exactly as I have described. This has resulted in management goals and objectives that have moved away from those created years ago.

While some in their progressive thinking might believe that the new way of doing things is better, there is lacking the good and proven science to support it. Where once fish and game departments managed for surplus supplies of fish and game for harvest, there now exists the mindset that harvest is secondary, that hunting, trapping and fishing are mere recreations. This has become intertwined with the badly taught myth that nature balances itself out. Along with the preaching of this myth is that hunting, trapping and fishing are no longer needed and thus we should not be concerned with surplus supplies of game animals. Instead predator protection as taken center stage, perhaps for the direct purpose to end these activities.

Man is a predator. It really is that simple and man is a part of the ecosystems that many environmentalists seem to want to rid him from. When predators are protected, the competition for prey species increases and thus, this diminishes this once thought of inalienable right to hunt and fish.

Whether we like it or not, the hunting and fishing industries provide billions of dollars to businesses and bolsters the tax base of the states and federal government. It is integral. To destroy these industries would be detrimental to a lot of people.

So why then are fish and game departments working so hard to protect predators? Do these departments fail to understand that if the hunting and fishing industries die, more than likely they will be out of a job? Yes, these agencies have worked for decades to move fish and game departments into environmental agencies and use general tax dollars for funding, in order to further remove the power of the sportsman from the decision making processes.

If states are going to perpetuate fishing and hunting opportunities for its citizens, the only way this can be done effectively is through predator control and not predator protection. What has always bothered me is when states opt to designate a predator as a “big game” animal. With such distinction, this animal then achieves the status as a species that is managed to provide hunting or fishing opportunities for the people. By doing such, the same mind set exists to manage for surplus harvests. This is a complete contradiction in managing traditional fish and game species (elk, deer, moose, caribou, sheep, etc.) for surplus.

Nobody is ever going to convince me that placing the hunting value of a predator like a bear, wolf, mountain lion or coyote, over that of a deer, moose, elk, caribou, etc. is a good thing. And yet, our fish and game are designating varmints like coyotes and wolves, as “big game” species, selling permits to hunt them and these creatures are in direct competition for the same prey species man is seeking. How does this make sense? It would seem that only a person opposed to man’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness would perpetuate such nonsense.

I understand the need, when necessary, to regulate the control and killing of predators, and thus the need for season and permits…..as I say, when necessary.

If your state no longer seems willing to manage game species for surplus harvest, perhaps it’s time to let the people know about it. If your fish and game department is protecting predators and managing them to perpetuate a hunting, fishing or trapping season on them, you know they probably have lost interest in managing real game for surplus harvest.

For me it just seems a really stupid thing to over protect the very creature that destroys your industry.

Tom Remington

Share