January 21, 2019

Maine: All Aboard for the IFW Commissioner Cocoa-Puff Train?

Golly gee whiz! Seems everyone is all on board for the governor-elect’s nomination of Judy Camuso as the new commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) – that is all except those who want to end bear hunting…and hunting, trapping, and fishing in general.

Up front let me say, I honestly do not know enough about the former head of the Division of Wildlife for MDIFW to make an intelligent decision for or against her nomination to head up that department. And if that statement doesn’t make any sense to some, let me just say I’m neither for nor against.

I am, however, a bit more of an independent thinker than some. Earlier I wrote about how I mostly believed that when the Wildlife Director Camuso became the quasi-mouthpiece for MDIFW in discussions involving the environmentalist’s second referendum to end bear hunting, she assumed that position more than likely because commissioner Chandler Woodcock asked her to. She may have also eagerly volunteered. I just don’t know and before her approval, I think all of us deserve to know.

So what does that mean? Who knows. It may mean nothing or it may mean everything. When the candidate for the commissioner’s chair says she won’t talk until after the nomination and selection process, how are any of us supposed to know whether the boot fits on the left or right foot?

What concerns me are those who point blank support Camuso’s nomination because she was that mouthpiece. Is it that people just don’t get it or are they so shallow-thinking they believe 100% that the items she appeared to support as the MDIFW’s mouthpiece are her own beliefs? Maybe they are maybe they are not. How many times in political history have people supported one person only later to find out they were wolves in sheep’s clothing? Too numerous to try to mention.

We may not find out for sure until it’s too late.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), head of the Maine Guides Association, and other outdoor writers have come out “all in” for Camuso’s selection. Probably some of these individuals and groups know a lot more about Camuso’s political ideology and how heavily engrained in Voodoo Science and Romance Biology she is than I am. If so, they seemed quite tight lipped about it.

One such outdoor writer who I am a strong supporter of, in his recent article stated that he thought supporting Camuso was a good idea. But perhaps the major reason he gave for that support isn’t the best one. He wrote: “Because Camuso was a strong and effective advocate for the game management value of recreational bear hunting during the controversial bear referendum, her appointment, however,will no doubt be opposed by the anti-bear hunting faction. For most of us in the sporting community, her role in that debate is reason alone to support her appointment with vigor.”

Is it reason enough, and “with vigor?”

Evidently.

Historically we see where voters cast a ballot for someone for similar reasons only to discover the error of their ways later on. As well, think of some of the recent nominations made by so-called “conservative” presidents to the Supreme Court, i.e. Souter and Kennedy (Bush and Reagan). (This is where I insert: BUT DON’T GO LOOK!)

Let me repeat, I am neither for nor against the nomination of Judy Camuso. As I said, I don’t know enough about her to know whether she will be a good commissioner. One thing is certain, I would want her in my employment because we do know that she was faithful in being Chandler Woodcock’s (Governor’s?) mouthpiece. If she is commissioner, will she exemplify the same management practices or will, as the appointment of a pretty left-wing democrat governor, go “all in” for Voodoo Science and Romance Biology?

For my dollar, I would rather base any decision about this appointment on a whole lot more than the fact that she is at least good at doing what her boss told her to do.

I wish others, instead of jumping in feet first and remaining submerged, would demand a lot more answers to certain questions rather than make assumptions…”with vigor.”

Don’t regret your support. Do your homework. She could be in charge for 8 years…8 very long years, perhaps.

Share

Should Maine’s Newly Elected Governor Put Black Bear Management in Hands of Planned Parenthood?

I was reading just yesterday a comment left online by a reader about bear hunting practices. The comment, as a plea to newly elected governor, Janet Mills, said something like, no animal has a chance when up against humans and their man-made weapons. They also added that Maine has no laws to protect animals.

Think about that for a moment. The plea is for protection of animals, so that no animal can be killed by humans for any reason…it appears. If the plea goes out to Governor Janet Mills, perhaps Gov. Mills might consider placing the management and protection of black bears in the hands of Planned Parenthood…or maybe not.

Planned Parenthood gave Janet Mills a 100% rating for her support of abortion of human infants. What does this tell us? Many things I would suppose. The first being that she might just value the lives of bears over those of humans. Of course the argument would be that an unborn child is not a living being and thus I am comparing apples with oranges.

If that is the case, then perhaps Maine should consider taking up the practice of aborting unborn bear fetuses while in hibernation. After all, if human fetuses and not human lifeforms, certainly bear fetuses are not bear lifeforms. Maine has an extensive bear study and management program where bear dens are visited on a regular basis. Before any bear cubs are born, biologists could drag the female bear from the den and kill her unborn cubs. Surely that would reduce the bear population. We can’t have more and more bears living on the landscape that are becoming a burden on society and taking away other bear’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of junk food.

There is something seriously wrong with a society that would advocate for more laws to protect animals but at the same time support the evil practice of murdering unborn babies. Maine’s new governor supports that practice. By comparison, those who support abortion “rights” also support animal rights.

SICK!

Share

Maybe More Junk Food For Bears Is The Answer

I find reading in echo-chambers of the press nonsensical articles that make little or no sense. I think most of it is a reflection of ignorance and laziness.

I’ve been reading how there has been a spike in bear and human conflicts in the Northeast this year. It appears the major excuse given is that there was a scarcity of natural food, causing the bears to seek any food source anywhere they could. Along with this, more conflict bears had to be killed because of risks of public safety…or something.

If I was to use the same sort of warped, circular thinking of many who don’t want to see any animal killed for any reason, I would first have to ask the question as to whether or not baiting bears during bear hunting season is a method of reducing bear conflicts with humans.

The argument always seems to focus around food supply as to what mostly effects bears’ behavior. If the thinking is that there are more bear conflicts and more deaths of baby bears due to lack of natural food, then perhaps on those lean years we should systematically set up bear feeding stations to reduce cub mortality and public safety issues.

Not really, but I hope you get my point.

Circular and illogical thinking causes a person to believe, according to those opposed to baiting bear, that bears would stay in the forest where the junk food was rather than come out and bother or harm people.

Just practicing the kind of thinking as of others, hurts my brain.

Also, according to what we have always been told that in those years of lacking natural food, bears are more readily drawn to bait pile and thus the success of bear hunters goes up.

With the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife now using that instant tagging data, we already know, er, uh, hmmm….NOTHING. If anyone has seen any kind of public release of bear harvest numbers for the 2018 bear hunt, please let me know.

Share

The Results of Socialistic Romance Biology Wildlife Management and Scape-Goating

I just can’t seem to leave this subject alone. I get angry when I see governments doing what governments do. The time and money wasted on useless, post-normal, bureaucratic B.S. that ends in worthless and trivial nonsense that amounts to no more than a hill of ________. (You fill in the blank.)

Earlier I wrote about Maine’s plan to subcontract out a portion of their black bear management plan. In that article I made the comment: “…why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

“Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?”

And then it donned on me. Recently the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) took a similar tactic when they wasted (in my opinion) money hiring a scientismistic private entity to conduct a “survey” to help MDIFW decide how they should do their jobs. It has always puzzled me that MDIFW refuses to open their ears and communicate with the boots-on-the-ground outdoors people but are eager and willing to hire some environmentalist-trained, biased company to tell them how to manage wildlife and outdoor recreation when said company knows squat about Maine or the people in it.

We have seen results of this corrupt environmentalist, Human Interaction, “survey” in the recent big game management plans. I think MDIFW seeking “outside” assistance is just another nail in the coffin to go along with the fraudulent management plans that apparently the department is incapable of crafting or too scared to do without laying the blame and responsibility on the results of the survey, i.e. some outside private business for profit entity.

When you combine the actions of MDIFW leadership over the past 2 or 3 years, I am left with no other explanation as to why Maine, once thought of as the leader in wildlife management, also once a leader in big game hunting and world class fishing, is so eager to do a double-flush of the toilet making sure all that was once good is now gone.

When nothing changes with the bear management plans and reaching the goals crafted in the new plan is a failure, MDIFW can conveniently blame whoever or whatever it is that told them what they ought to do.

MDIFW has had multiple recommendations pushed in front of them concerning bear management. It’s laughable that MDIFW will buckle and cave to the demands of environmentalists and guides, refusing to do anything constructive to reduce the bear population out of fear of reprisals from guides, environmentalists, and animal rights groups, while shutting their ears and eyes to the real sportsmen. And then, we see this act of seeking an outside opinion. You can’t make this stuff up.

Because MDIFW refuses to do what’s right, they are slaves to guides, outfitters and the environmental movement. The result, they claim, is they can’t find (wink-wink) a solution to the supposed bear problem.

What will we hear next? MDIFW has decided to award their bear management subcontract to a subsidiary of the Humane Society of the United States based in China?

Share

The Mythical Bear Study Extremists Seem to Adore

The other day I wrote about how the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) announced that it was seeking bids from private enterprise to assist them with devising a “model” to better control the black bear population in Maine.

*Important Note*(I find that the MDIFW’s credibility on wildlife management issues dwindles the more they talk. Maybe that’s why they are so close-lipped about many things. I say this because here we have a situation in which the MDIFW is coming off announcements of the release of their future big game management plans which calls for less focus on counting the numbers of deer, bear, moose, turkeys, etc. and placing more focus on a “healthy” population. Evidently, MDIFW is discovering how difficult it must be for them to manage these game species without spending time counting. As such, it now appears the MDIFW has reached out to private enterprise to help them COUNT.)

As a result of the latest announcement of seeking outside help, the Media has erupted with information from every Tom (LOL), Dick, and Harry either for or against this idea, which seems to be going hand in hand with the announcement that newly elected governor Janet Mills has selected the current head of the Division of Wildlife at MDIFW, Judy Camuso, to be the next commissioner of the department.

In the fray, it seems members of the media and heads of animal rights groups have crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Mills’ appointment of Camuso is a big mistake because she did her job under Commissioner Woodcock and was his mouthpiece during the last bear referendum.

It should be noted that these groups and much of the echo-chamber Press, will not give up this fight until they get what they want. Eventually, they will.

In many a previous discussion about bear hunting, more specifically using bait as a hunting method, those who opposed baiting bear (realistically they oppose all hunting regardless of method.) have never had any “scientific” studies to support their claims, until 4 people from the University of Southern Maine created a study of their own – a “model” I might add, and most of us should know by now what modeling does when it comes to science. Which brings me to the point of this article.

The so-called “study” can be found at this link.

I’m not going to spend a great deal of time going through the entire study to point out the flaws. However, in order that people can make intelligent decisions, especially when it comes to voter referendums, somebody ought to tell the truth and point out the realities, especially when it comes to such things as “models” used as a “scientific” foundation to build a political argument.

First, I should say that it is my opinion that much of what was published in this study is credible, however falsely based on Natural Regulation. What is missing is information that would seriously manipulate the results that were concluded from the modeling done. Unless, you are intelligent enough to read and understand the entire study, cherry picking quotes and statements here and there to promote one’s agenda is dishonest at best.

Throughout the study, the authors repeatedly state that they “made assumptions” and purposely did not include data that would have altered the results of the study, but stated they “were satisfied with the outcomes.” *Note* – If the outcome is what is desired, what’s not to be satisfied about it?

When anyone models information to arrive at some kind of conclusion, it is far too easy to manipulate the input in order to obtain a desired outcome. This outcome, it is realized, becomes a powerful tool for the very same reason that animal rights groups are cherry-picking information to substantiate their agendas. This is precisely the definition of “Scientism.”

I doubt that the authors of this study are any more qualified to create it than I am. I will note that references and resources, of course were hand-picked. In addition, I will give very little credibility to any information used as a reference in a so-called scientific study that uses Wikipedia. If you don’t understand this statement then you will not understand the basis of my entire article.

Modeling, as I said, is far too easy to manipulate input to get the output desired. I’m not definitively saying the authors deliberately went out of their way to devise the outcome they desired. Only you can make that assessment yourselves.

Therefore, guess work and estimates are useless in deriving any conclusions that are anything but guess work and estimates – garbage in and garbage out.

Data used by the study writers, included data that comes from the MDIFW website. Ironic isn’t it that those animal rights advocates will jump all over hand-selected data from this study (much of which comes from MDIFW) to aid and abet their passions but in the same breath curse the department for being ignorant of bear management. How is that?

The MDIFW will be the first to admit their data on species populations are estimates – estimate in, estimate out. Studies and Modeling supports estimates and guesses.

Even though as I stated, much of what is written is reasonable if only it was more honestly stated that their results are only estimates of the inexact data they had to work with. The truth is there are so many variables in the life cycles, ecosystem changes, and management plans, attempting to claim that baiting bears causing the population to grow is really quite dishonest.

Too many simplistic assumptions are made in order for the authors to reach the conclusions that they did. One that just kept jumping out at me was the bulk of their modeling and the results they obtained were based on the belief that in the late Summer and early Fall, when bear hunting and baiting is being done, bears naturally eat only beechnuts. Really? In off years and in areas where there are no beech trees, the poor bears must starve to death.

As the study states, most biologist agree that bears prefer natural food over the slop baiters put out to entice them, and yet, so many conclusions are made based on this notion that bears eat only beechnuts in the Fall.

Another issue I find incomplete, or dishonest if that’s what you choose to believe, is the study doesn’t even mention where baiting takes place and how the food used in baiting can contribute to a false “carry capacity” as a percentage of the total statewide bear population. If it is true that baiting bears contributes millions of calories and 7 million pounds of “unnatural” food for bears, what is the percentage of bears that are actually getting bait food versus those that never see it, or at least what comes in a barrel in the middle of the woods? This study is void of such discussion.

I will repeat, there are just too many variables to be able to make the claims these authors did that baiting bears causes the population statewide to increase every year, evidently with no end in sight.

I will also point out that much of the information contained in this study is based on the myth of natural regulation. Figures and formulas are presented based on the theory of natural regulation. There is no such thing in the context of which it was presented in this study. Natural Regulation, perhaps more accurately described as Natural Irregularity, everything is a constant changing of positive and negative feedback loops. These loops provide large swings up and down of species population. Odd that these authors even used their own devised positive and negative feedback loops and yet somehow those loops only contribute to a growing bear population when baiting is being done.

But we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Although many choose to only hand-select information that benefits them and their political agendas, the authors offer conclusions and remedies to what they perceive as a management problem. Let’s look.

The authors conclude that bear baiting increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” and based on their findings the current bear management plan will not reduce the bear population. *Note*If baiting of bears increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” then in theory, and using the same logic used in this modeling, unless there is a constant increase in the number of bear hunters and the amount of bait being spread throughout the bears’ ecosystem, then why doesn’t the “false” carrying capacity created by baiting, level off and thus the population of bears level off as part of their false natural regulation?

I think I would have to agree with at least the part that says that unless the MDIFW changes something the bear population is going to continue to grow provided all other variables remain relatively constant.

The authors make recommendations as to what MDIFW can do. It might appear to me that all of those opposed to bear hunting deliberately avoid mentioning these recommendations. Who can blame them? I might add that these animal rights people want only hunting, trapping, and fishing to be banned and let “Natural Regulation” take over. Part of me wishes this would happen just so I can say I told you so.

The recommendations given in a nutshell are these:

First, ban baiting. Their model “suggests” if baiting was banned only about 700 fewer bears would be killed. (Note – I wonder if that number includes any of the bears they chose to not include in the model that shows baiting grows the population?)

Second, encourage the hunting of female bears and cubs. GASP!!! How dare anyone whose data I used to promote anti-hunting agendas suggest killing momma and baby bears!! GASP!! (again)

Third – and this is the one that floors me – continue the use of bait but switch the bait from junk food to “natural beechnuts.” Say what? If the argument is that baiting artificially grows the carrying capacity and thus artificially grows the population, how then is switching the bait going to change much. Is it that we have now become more and more conscious of the bears’ diet? Yes, I have also read that as well.

So where do the beechnuts come from? Doing a quick Google search I couldn’t find any stores that market and sell beechnuts. So……? Are hunters and guides supposed to start collecting bushel baskets and hiring people to go out and pick beechnuts to bait deer with? Maybe there’s an after-school job for some young boys and girls harvesting beechnuts to provide bear guides with bait.

If the bait used for bear hunting is supposed to be changed from junk food to natural beechnuts, the ONLY way I know of to do this without altering the natural ecosystem carrying capacity, is to pick the beechnuts from the trees within that ecosystem and make feeding by the bears easier. Remember in the “regulated” world of Natural Regulation, beechnuts cannot be brought into an area where they did not naturally appear, otherwise what’s the difference in what you use for bait unless the concern is to provide a healthy diet and cut down on tooth decay in bears?

Part of the circular, confusing reasoning used in this study, the conclusions derived, and suggestions made shows up when the authors suggest that introducing bears to human food will, “teach bears to associate humans with food.” Smart critters aren’t they. I’ve always asked the question and never given an honest answer, if bears are so damned smart that they learn to associate human food with humans, are they equally as smart to learn that human food might mean a bullet in the butt?

There will always be disagreements with wildlife management. In recent years, as the culture of this nation morphs into something I perceive as perverted, things have gone far beyond disagreements in wildlife management practices. They have gone to a point where people are demanding an end to long-held traditions of hunting, trapping, and fishing. Their beliefs cause them to take whatever direction they need to in order to get their way.

Ironic it is, that some who advocate for animals rights and protection, even wishing to deny a person’s inalienable right to eat the foods that LORD GOD ALMIGHTY provided us, take offense to anyone who counters their idealistic Romance Biology, as though we are supposed to just shut up and do as we are told…by them.

Share

Politics, Culture, Environmentalism, Set To Maine Looking to Compromise Black Bear Management

It certainly appears to me that Maine is being set up for changes that are sure to destroy much of what is left of a once-scientific wildlife management department.

Headlining the news around the Pine Tree State, is the announcement that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is seeking bids from private businesses to establish a “model” that can be used by MDIFW biologists in managing black bears.

Think about this for a moment. For decades now, Maine has boasted as having the premier black bear management program in this here United States. Now they seek outside help? Why? Think what you will but I have my suspicions – the leader of such distrustful actions being another way of appeasing the Environmentalists and Animal Rights purveyor of perverted, and misguided scientismic nonsense to support their agendas. What other reasons are there? To publicly seek outside help is, more than likely, taken by the public as some kind of admission that they can no longer do the job.

If you will recall, MDIFW has stated for several years now that the black bear population is too large and needs to be reduced. However, talk apparently is cheap because with all the talk nothing has changed to mitigate the problem. Are there enough complaints from non-scientific animal rights groups that MDIFW feels the need to go aside the department hoping to muster more believable “data” that they hope will convince the radical Left? Is this some kind of red herring devised to bring more support from the extreme Left to the new governor’s side should she decide to trash the whole idea of better bear management replaced with Romance Biology?

Strange isn’t it that this announcement comes shortly after a new governor has been elected. As is almost always the case, the new Governor, Janet Mills (D), will appoint new commissioners to run her administration. Included in those appointments is that of the MDIFW. Reigning Commissioner Woodcock, who leaves behind a mixed bag of results, will be replaced. It appears Mills’ nomination is the current Director of the Wildlife Division, Judy Camuso.

I have read that the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance supports the Camuso nomination but I haven’t really heard any good reasons for doing so. Some on the Left oppose Camuso’s nomination because she was the mouthpiece for MDIFW during the last anti-bear hunting referendum. While many may support her because of her performance as Division of Wildlife director under Woodcook, it may be plausible that Camuso should be applauded for doing the job Woodcock/LePage wanted her to do. Does anyone really know anything about her political affiliations, her positions on hunting, fishing, trapping, Environmentalism, or Animal Rights?

Politics is politics and you can be sure that such good ole boy corruption will never be put aside to find the best available candidate for the job. Don’t get me wrong. I said I don’t know any of this stuff. What I do know is that she seemed to be a good mouthpiece for Mr. Woodcock. In reality, when you consider the governor elect’s background, why would she nominate someone that wasn’t her yes person?

Environmentalism is taking over the world and Maine is not exempt. A demanding society, the loudest of which is always on the Left, promotes a culture change void of any kind of scientific-based wildlife management programs – such programs that utilize consumptive use as a tool for population controls to promote animal health, public safety, and the opportunity for traditionalists to fill their freezers with food and enjoy the long held traditions of hunting, fishing, and trapping.

In its place, we have seen a growing trend toward demanding the rights of animals over those of people, regardless of the outcome. Instead of using real, proven science in wildlife management, the choice of today is scientism. Essentially, Scientism is the process of creating a desired result for any chosen agenda.

Scientism is most often exposed when anyone, and I mean anyone, can fabricate what appears to be a scientific study, when in fact it is a fraud conjured from the notion that most of the world knows no different and will eagerly accept this fraud as a powerful tool of (fake) scientific knowledge.

We can see that in a “study” composed by a Ph.D and three Masters of Business Administration people from the University of Southern Maine. (and what are their qualifications in creating and substantiating the claims made in the study?) This is the Bible (there is nothing else), evidently, of the radical Left animal rights groups who have spent millions of dollars in attempts to end bear hunting – just another step to the ending of all hunting, trapping, and fishing.

The Voodoo Science and Romance Biology in the Scientismic study is proven as such from merely a basic understanding of hypocrisy and contradictory statements.

Not to get sidetracked, but the point to all of this is why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?

Or maybe it’s nothing more than a sign of what’s to come – the MDIFW, like so many other fish and wildlife departments across the country, has pretty much gone completely environmental, driven exclusively by social demands and global warming.

So, what will happen in Maine and specifically to the MDIFW? Who is Camuso…really? Is she a clone of the new governor? Is she merely a puppet and will do whatever to keep the governor happy? Does she support the move to privatize some of black bear management? What other wildlife species will the new governor and commissioner choose to privatize management of? I’m not sure we can honestly answer these questions. The commissioner elect said she would answer questions AFTER the nomination and election process is over. How then are we to know who the governor is nominating. All members of all parties, as well as those of us who do not identify with any party, would like a chance to voice our concerns before she is elected.

Regardless of all this – black bear modeling, new commissioner – I have little hope that much will change for the good.

Share

Anti-Hunting Mental Drool

Along with the time of year when there is much activity with hunting and trapping, we all regularly are subjected to the mental drool of those who don’t like any of the activities. Maybe if they just said I don’t like hunting and trapping and left it at that, some of us wouldn’t bother to single them out to expose their limited mental capacities while disparaging a worthwhile, long-standing, cultural heritage that has unlimited benefits to both man and wildlife – hunting.

A letter scribbler in the Bangor Daily News called hunting and trapping “incivil” – evidently meaning that any reporting in the news about hunting and trapping is offensive, rude, or impolite. The writer also called hunting and trapping an unworthy event and unsportsmanlike and said hunting was no longer “fair chase.”

Here’s a couple of things to ponder. Most of these terms – fair chase, sportsmanlike, etc. – have been crafted by men over the years perhaps as a means of pulling the wool over someone’s eyes about hunting and trapping. They are man-made terms much the same as when some mental midget declares hunting is an act to “prove one’s manhood.”

Fair chase is really nothing but abiding by the laws crafted by men for men to hunt and trap animals for consumptive use. All rules and regulations for hunting and trapping are grounded in species management and public safety – nothing more. I never thought of hunting as a “sport” therefore sportsmanship had nothing to do with the act. I see hunting as something I enjoy doing that occasionally (emphasis on occasionally) rewards me with a few good meals of healthy meat.

So give it a rest already. Take your “fair chase” and “sportsmanship” to the athletic field, where these days everyone gets a “trophy.” Hunting and trapping are a well developed scientific necessity to responsibly manage and maintain a healthy and sustainable game population.

The other issue is one in which I’ve never quite understood. Obvious this whiner takes offense – finds incivility – in news reports about hunting and trapping, and yet in order to find offense, the person must be reading the reports.

As this writer mentions, they find politicians offensive and rude, as do I. I find the solution sensible. Stop reading the articles and looking at the pictures. Any moron should understand that basic concept, but evidently, that is above the capacity of some who would rather whine, bitch, and complain about something they know nothing about.

 

Share

And The Bear and Moose “Instant” Harvest Data Is………?

The baiting season for black bears is over. The black bear hunting season with hounds has been ongoing since September 10 and will run until October 26. Black bears can still be taken during the regular deer hunting season.

The first week of moose hunting for Zones 1-6, 10, 11, 18, 19, 27, 29 ended September 29th.

With the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife promising that they would have virtually “instant” tagging data, why haven’t they published any of this information? MDIFW extolled the benefits to hunters and the department but evidently, those benefits must be prioritized to MDIFW only and they will wield their full control over the wishes of some of us and withhold that data until such time as it is beneficial to them.

Business as usual I guess.

And how much did WE pay to have this new system???

Isn’t the Department required by law to share this data? Or do we have to beg to get it?

I’m still waiting for a web page on the MDIFW site that is live, i.e. that when a tag is registered digitally, it shows up immediately on a page that can be viewed by everyone…at any time.

We have the technology!!!!!!!!!

As an aside: Maine is in the middle of the busiest time of the year with hunting seasons. The state is busy, busy, busy with bears, moose, turkey, upland birds, migratory birds, and small game and we get to find out that MDIFW has completed their bald eagle survey.

Nice!

 

Share

Doing Nothing About Maine’s “Too Many Bears” And What’s Up With Electronic Tagging?

Let’s start with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) new system of electronic tagging so that the Department can have essentially real-time harvest data. I mentioned in a previous post about this new system where MDIFW stated it would benefit hunters, etc., that it would remain a mystery as to whether MDIFW would be eager to share their new-found electronic toy with the general public. Evidently not.

Today I read where Maine has harvested 2,627 bears as of September 17th. The major bear hunt, with the use of baits, where the majority of bears are taken, ended on September 22nd and yet MDIFW has not shared with the public the harvest numbers. Hmmm! New system malfunctioning? MDIFW up to their usual power control tactics?

To get this bit of information came from a news media platform, which, evidently is privileged to access to this information (not beneficial to hunters) or they had to call MDIFW and beg and plead for the information.

There is nothing on the MDIFW website that shares harvest data. Perhaps we can now get it from them BEFORE the start of next season’s bear hunt and not sometime after.

In this same Internet article, it states that Maine’s bear hunt is “successful” but that the population is still growing. Is this MDIFW’s intent, to grow the population even more? If not, just what is MDIFW seriously doing to solve this problem?

If they wait long enough, a disease will take over and do the job management should be doing. But we know that MDIFW’s hands are tied because of the policies they employ of meeting the social demands of environmental groups. In addition, MDIFW is controlled by Maine’s guides and outfitters who tell the department what they want in order to maximize their profits, even at the expense of the scientific need to actually reduce the bear population.

 

 

Share

Lies, Misinformation, and Emotional Clap Trap About Bear Management, Hunting, and Trapping

Katie Hansberry, head of the Maine chapter of the Humane Society of the United States, and one who has weaseled her way onto the subcommittee for black bears at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has penned an opinion piece and the Bangor Daily News has published it as a “Special to the Bangor Daily News.”

I refuse to provide a link to her propaganda as it is not worthy of any recognition beyond expressing my complete disgust that any print publication would allow such unsubstantiated drivel to be published in their paper.

Not one shred of evidence was provided by the author to back up her ridiculous claims about bears, bear behavior, hunting, or trapping. The claims are so bizarre that the newspaper should have questioned the content and sought some kind of substantiations to support the claims.

There are none.

One can only hope that enough readers will see the work for what it is and toss it in the garbage where it belongs. All are entitled to an opinion. Such opinions presented in this fashion are nothing more than agitprop drowning in emotional animal perversion proselytizing.

Shame on the Bangor Daily News for giving this inculcation space in their paper.

 

Share