August 20, 2019

Maine IFW Chief: A Century From Now People Will Say…………

I suppose I could call it some form of job security, but why people at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife continue to provide fodder that prompts repeated demands for accountability on my part, puzzles me. Evidently the Sportsman’s Congress, sponsored by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, was the breeding ground for yet another jewel of spoken words.

In Deirdre Fleming’s article in Saturday’s Press Herald, she begins her piece this way:

A century from now, Mainers will look back and say the state’s fish and game department did what it promised, vowed Chandler Woodcock on Friday.

This remark, as written in Fleming’s piece, came as Mr. Woodcock addressed the Sportsman’s Congress. Part of that debate included discussions on Maine’s efforts, or lack thereof, in rebuilding a whitetail deer herd that is far from adequate.

While some attempts at regulating Maine’s game began in the early to mid 1800s, it was around a century or so ago that Maine and most states in the Union were devising fish and game laws that became the backbone for the North American wildlife management model.

One would have to wonder if the head of Maine’s fish and game around the turn of the century had said, “A century from now, Maine will be at a crossroads not willing to do what is right to protect and perpetuate the game species for the people of this state”, people would have thought him crazy.

But here we are and the current commissioner is talking about the hope that between now and a hundred years from now the deer problem will be saved. I’m sure I will be told that Mr. Woodcock didn’t mean that it would take 100 years to replenish the deer herd. I’m also sure that the same supporters of his comments will claim that Mr. Woodcock feels so strongly about his “Plan for Maine’s Deer” that it will be the greatest thing since the Ginsu Kitchen Knife…….or something.

Perhaps so, and I would suppose a quick pat on the back would be in store for attempting to raise sportsman’s hopes for the future but why would he choose to pick 100 years? I mean, how many fish and game commissioners that have come before Mr. Woodcock have left behind some kind of lasting legacy? How many can you name that we should all remember from 100 years ago? Or twenty years ago? That’s what I thought.

I honestly don’t think Mr. Woodcock is thinking about his legacy, so I have to think that little thought went into his choice of making reference to a century from now.

The current Maine sportsmen are looking for action NOW. They want actions NOW that will create results NOW. And then they want assurances that what we do NOW will pay off NOW and TOMORROW and the NEXT DAY, and that other plans taking place NOW will work at building and maintaining a deer herd 5 years from now and 10 years from now. And the commissioner speaks of what Maine people will be commenting on in 100 years? Are we supposed to lock up our hunting rifles now and make sure our wills are up-to-date so we pass on our hunting rifles to the proper inheritor?

The Commissioner has a plan to rebuild the deer herd. I think he thinks it is a good plan and that it will work. I have serious reservations about it and even if I thought it was a good plan, how can it be implemented with little support for it statewide that is being shown now?

Mr. Woodcock does need to continue to sell his plan. I’m afraid telling the sportsmen that things will be just ducky in 100 years really isn’t going to fire up the troops too much.

I can hear the faint echos now: “Five score and 7 years ago, our founding fathers brought forth in this state, Maine’s Game Plan for Deer , conceived in good thinking and dedicated to the proposition that in one hundred years men would look back and say, ‘What the hell were they thinking’?”

Tom Remington

Share

Idaho Fish and Game: Contempt, Corruption, Collusion, or Just Outright Incompetence?

A guest blog by Barry Coe –

Having been born and raised in Idaho and as a lifelong sportsman of this state, I have had many issues with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) over the years. I have witnessed their actions on several issues that have directly lead to diminished fish and wildlife, and diminished sporting opportunities. In attempting to be involved and to protect our culture and interests, I have had one very consistent attitude and response from the agency that has become very proficient at taking whatever position they seem to think will best further their own agenda. That attitude is pure and raw contempt. And no other issue has exposed and proven this contempt more than the Canadian wolf introduction has.

IDFG has attempted to take the ‘we hold no blame’ position concerning wolves in this state. I feel it has been well proven that they, in fact, hold a large percentage of blame. A prior director actually wrote support letters to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and drafted an illegal permit that allowed the Canadian wolves to be dumped into this state in a blaring contempt for Idaho state code. It was so contemptuous that the Idaho state legislature actually reacted to the action, although they failed to implement accountability. Yet those were the days before the Internet and the ability to transfer information quickly and thoroughly throughout the population. Those were the days of running under the radar and outright collusion between state and federal agencies. There is little doubt in my mind, and I suspect anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of this issue would agree, that outright collusion between IDFG and the USFWS did, and continue, to take place. Wolves, grizzly bears, soon to be wolverines and all other claimed endangered species are a vast source of federal dollars and we all know, IDFG loves nothing like they love the federal dollar.

In a recent article, Jim (salt shaker) Hayden (IDFG Panhandle Regional Wildlife Manager) made yet another revealing comment. In this interview “Salt Shaker” Hayden seemed surprised that about 50% of the wolves harvested in this current wolf season have come from areas that IDFG didn’t even know contained wolves. Now, on the surface this comment may seem unimportant, yet when one considers the past 16 years, it’s importance is almost undefinable.

I have to ask this question of Mr. Hayden. Just exactly how can you manage a declining elk population when you obviously have no concept of the level of predation impacting those elk?

For years IDFG took the politically correct avenue of clinging onto the obviously and intentionally low official numbers of wolves. As hunters and outdoorsmen screamed from the rafters that those numbers were so far off it was incredible, IDFG turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. After all, the federal bucks were rolling in and the hunters were still buying licenses and tags. All was well and good at IDFG. Biologists were being hired (most directly out of the wolf introduction program) and the rumblings were contained to a small population of people who never knew how to get the truth out, especially in the face of IDFG and green eco-groups. The old tactic of ignoring and marginalizing was rolling along just fine.

It was only in the last year or two that IDFG was forced to admit that, ‘well, golly, okay, so our wolf population is around 1000 wolves’. Again the sportsmen and sportswomen of Idaho claimed that number was also an intentional down playing of the actual number of wolves in Idaho. As we witnessed the great elk herds disappear from first hand observation, IDFG still clung to the deceit that all was fine. They twisted a few numbers here, changed a few “objectives” there, rewrote a few algorithms, adjusted some seasons and continued to play both sides of the fence. After all, this has always been the status quo for this department. The level of contempt IDFG obviously has for anyone outside of the department or the federal system is amazingly apparent.

Wolf math just is not that hard. They breed like rabbits, yet have no predators. The lie just became too hard to cover up anymore and so, the science changed – I use science here with my tongue stuffed soundly into my cheek. For a decade we had manipulated science stuffed down our throats that exonerated their revenue generating wolves from any cause of any problem we were experiencing anywhere in the state they inhabited. When it became obvious that the truth was coming out, and that delisting was imminent, in spite of the department’s best efforts to keep them listed, and even drafting and submitting an illegal wolf management plan, they decided to flip over. In typical IDFG fashion, the wolves were now the cause of it all! Boy, aren’t we happy that they finally have seen the light! After all we have been telling them this for 10 years.

But, they now face a wiser and more connected sportspeople. We’re not buying it and they know it. We are now very informed and politically connected; we have communication outlets and media connections. But again, in true IDFG fashion, they have decided to try another avenue to generate their revenue. They want nothing worse than to have the hunters of this state out of the equation. We no longer forget past actions or play in the manner they want us to, paying more for less. They now turn to the tactic of pandering and collusion.

In what seems on the surface to be a politically correct action of seeking information concerning wildlife management in the state of Idaho, they have committed a few obvious mistakes that exposed their true intention. Their highly publicized ‘Summit’ was rolled out as that meeting. Conducted DURING hunting season, and with invitations extended to several anti-hunting, eco-green groups, and a group of actual past and present IDFG employees, IDFG now wants input on wildlife management. And, they want that input from everyone that doesn’t pay for it or expect the department to do anything other than perpetuate predators and sustain their job at all costs.

Rumor has it that this little summit has caused a rift in the ranks. It seems to have been generated right from the new director Virgil Moore; or at least that is where all the fingers are pointing. It seems that this long-time employee of IDFG, and new director, is attempting to return to the status quo of ignore and move forward. Instead of moving in the direction of attempting to get out from under the wolf issue, he now seems to want to change gears and get back in bed with the green, wildlands agenda, and he wants their money. Public input on management? How quaint! If only it didn’t reek of corruption, contempt and collusion. If, in fact, this is the brain child of Mr. Moore, he just flatly needs to go; it is far past time to get a director that is not a long time member of the IDFG’s good old boys club. We have flatly had enough! I suspect if our legislature is not willing to overhaul this department, the time has come to turn to the citizen and the ballot box. We have one very powerful tool at our disposal; initiatives, which are binding if passed and can be used to circumvent a lack of appropriate action by those in government. They do have the ability to change this department in ways that will both form the department in a manner the citizens of Idaho want and to also bring accountability to this long-time rogue department. The good old boys club must be dismantled.

Actual wolf numbers? Let’s return to Jim “Salt Shaker” Hayden for a few moments. I have heard sportsmen and women, who spend an immense amount of time in the outdoors, claim the wolf numbers in Idaho are at least double what IDFG claims. It now seems “Salt Shaker” Hayden has validated those claims. And in that claim, his statement speaks volumes. It is very sad that a department that is charged with the management of Idaho’s wildlife have failed so miserably, and stayed the course of ignoring sportspeople to the extent they have. There are but a few explanations for this miserable failure: Corruption, Collusion or outright incompetence. I will leave it to you to decide which it is or how much longer you are going to stand for it.

Barry Coe
Save Western Wildlife

Share

Why Do Environmentalists Support the Destruction and Pollution Caused by Wind Energy?

*Update* Since the posting of this article, I have since posted a short movie trailer video called “Windfall” about the facts behind wind energy.

What I don’t understand are the contradictions and hypocrisy surrounding wind energy. Most people who support wind energy also support ideals like clean water, clear air, the environment in general, land preservation, keeping landscapes “natural”, reduction of noise pollution, non destruction of our ecosystems. And yet, they support wind turbine energy. Why?

Often environmental preservationists consider hunters and trappers as the enemy, although these two groups have done more to conserve our environment than perhaps all environmental groups who have come after them. Often environmentalists paint hunters and trappers as consumers of natural resources and yet many, many, many of those fighting against the environmental destruction, including physically, visually and audibly, of wind energy are the hunters, trappers and outdoor sportspeople. So which groups are the radicals?

Here is another example of what is being foisted onto Maine people. A few days ago, I reported on wind turbines that were constructed on the Record Hill area of Roxbury, Maine. This is a follow-up post to that report.

I received more photos with short commentary from Albert Ladd who lives a short distance from the Roxbury wind towers. He provided readers with pictures for the previous post. Mr. Ladd is a hunter and trapper in the region. Below is a short report he filed with me and provided 4 photographs to go along with his commentary.

“Today I went in on the Bunker Pond road to set up a beaver colony [trapping]. Now I’m roughly a half mile from the towers. Cold quiet and no wind down where I was. The sound [from the turbines] is more of a rumble and somewhat sounds like a truck coming and coming, but never gets any closer. I stopped at Bunker like one commenter told of doing [previous article]. There are no camps on Bunker, and it’s a good thing as the noise is quite loud and I bet constant most of the time.

The pictures show the towers and one shows the top of the beaver house [photo 1] with a tower or two seen through the trees [photo 2 & 3]. The rocks are on one of 3 roads that go close to the towers on the way into Bunker [photo 4]. All 3 have been blocked off like this, and I do believe one had a bridge pulled.

I’ve listened to several people through the years that said they’ve drove right up to these towers and heard no sound at all. –RIGHHHHT!

For ever on now the forest around here will have this near constant drone! What a criminal thing to do. Never thought I’d dislike them this much.”

Share

Mt. Redoubt and Mt. Iliamna, Alaska


Mt. Redoubt, Alaska
Photo by Al Remington


Mt. Iliamna, Alaska
Photo by Al Remington


Mt. Iliamn, Alaska on the left. Mt. Redoubt, Alaska on the right.
Photo by Al Remington

Share

Open Thread – January 9, 2012

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

Share

Prominent Marine Biologist Facing 20 Years in Prison for Feeding Whales

Hat tip to reader “Harley”

Nancy Black, a well known “whale expert” is being charge with violating the Marine Mammal Protection Act because she allegedly fed killer whales in 2005, a claim her attorney says is false. The story is bizarre and drives home further thoughts of fascist government control over our lands and waters.

Tom Remington

Share

Open Thread – January 7, 2010

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

Share

The “Intellectual Rubbish” of “Ecosystems” and “Balance of Nature”

*Editor’s Note:* Yesterday I received an email from a member of a communication network who questioned what tactics were going to be necessary to correct this perpetuated myth of “natural regulation” or “natural balance”. For those not familiar with these terms, essentially the self-appointed custodians of the forests have fabricated the idea that if man would just simply go away, then our fields and forests would self regulate into some elevated form of nirvana. Yesterday, in the same email, I coined the title for such believers as sufferers of “UPEPS” or Utopian Philosophy Ecosystem Perfection Syndrome.

UPEPS has run rampant across this land and how I got UPEPS was from information provided to me by Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus, University of Calgary. This email prompted me to research my archives to reread what I wrote just about one year ago about the balance of nature.

Here’s is a republication of that article. Please do yourselves a favor and follow the links and take the time to understand about positive and negative feedback loops and how those relate to our everyday lives. And then ask yourself if nature can “balance” itself if man would just bug out.

Today, we learned that Dr. Valerius Geist, a foremost wildlife scientist, “Denounced Ecosystem Management“. In his condemnation he described the belief in “Utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity” as “intellectual rubbish”. He also challenges, in a way, those not stricken with “intellectual laziness” to “Know the difference between positive and negative feed back, and you are on the way of understanding both homeostasis in individuals and stochastic non-determinism in ecosystems.”

I would like to take a layman’s stab at explaining about ecosystems and the myth of nature balancing itself. As with everything I write, I don’t ask readers to simply believe what I write but to do some research and make their own determinations.

Of late, I have composed a couple articles in reference to “natural regulation, here and here. The theory of “natural regulation” can just as easily be described in the same fashion as Dr. Geist used above; “utopian philosophy of ecosystem perfection absent of all human activity.” Or, in words we can all understand – just leave it alone and let things go as they will.

Part of the problem is that all people have been subjected to the use of the word, “ecosystem” to describe a landscape where flora and fauna live together in perfect harmony. “Eco” being a hip word these days (I assumed derived from ecology) and the “system” I am willing to wager is very much misunderstood. Many people, if engaged in some kind of biology discussion, might think of a system as their own body; a composition of organs and tissues all working together, the result of which is a living, breathing and walking specimen of human being.

Unfortunately the “system” in ecosystem is only used as a means of classification, or dare I say, should be used in that way. Regardless, the term in and of itself is quite misleading.

Dr. Geist spoke of “know[ing] the difference between positive and negative feed back”. This information can easily be obtained by doing searches Online but perhaps it’s much easier to find than understand. As individual humans (animals), our system (body) works to maintain “homeostasis” – “to maintain internal stability, owing to the coordinated response of its parts to any situation or stimulus tending to disturb its normal condition or function”. The responses to those disturbances are what are known as “negative feedback loops“, working to reverse or negate those disturbances. Dr. Geist says this is why “individuals are individuals”, i.e. “because they are controlled by negative feed back – negative!“.

In the contrast, as is pointed out by Geist, groups of organisms living together, in what is now too commonly referred to as that somewhat mythical “ecosystem”, are “never controlled but instead are subjected to “whims and randomness of positive feed back”.

Positive feedback loops, logically would be the counterpart to negative feedback loops. In the positive feedback loop, the body senses changes or disturbances and reacts to actually speed up the change. Some examples of this in humans might be a heart attack, clotting of blood, or even labor pains.

Dr. Geist tells us that if we can gain a solid understanding of the differences between positive feedback loops and negative feedback loops, then we might better understand “both homeostasis in individuals and stochastic non-determinism in ecosystems”.

Stochastic as it would apply to our “ecosystems” involves “a random variable or variables“.

Our ecosystems, so used, is a conglomeration of organisms all subjected to the influences of random variables that are forever changing. Geist describes those random variables as: “whims and randomness of positive feed back.”

If in our minds we can envision that our world is comprised of multiple pockets of habitat of varying sizes, each abutting and/or overlapping, or even standing apart, comprised of diverse species of plant and animals (including man) and all being subjected to random variables, it becomes much more difficult to seriously give credit to a “balance of nature”.

Tom Remington

Share

Finding Wolves Where Wolves Weren’t Thought to Be

Imagine that? For years now, outdoor sportsmen in Idaho have been pounding on the heads of officials at the Department of Fish and Game telling them there are a lot more wolves than the department thinks there are and they are in places IDFG believes they don’t exist.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2012, in a radio interview on KUOW.org website, Jim Hayden, the regional manager for IDFG in the Panhandle region is said to have claimed:

Though Hayden thinks the biggest reason for hunters’ success is -– more wolves. He says at least half the wolves hunters have brought in came from areas Fish and Game didn’t know had wolf packs.

Hayden evidently was making this claim when being questioned about why he thought wolf hunters and trappers had already killed more wolves during this season than the one held in 2009.

What an epiphany!!

Tom Remington

Share

Kenai, Alaska Moose


Photo by Al Remington

Share