November 15, 2018

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

RMEF, SAF Oppose Yellowstone Grizzly Ruling

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation disagree with a judge’s decision to vacate the delisting of the Greater Yellowstone grizzly population by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The ruling places the population back on the endangered species list.
“We are highly disappointed with this decision,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “Once again we see that extreme environmental groups continue to clog up the delisting process at a time when we should be celebrating the recovery of grizzlies in the region. Scientists gathered data and population numbers that show grizzlies in the region surpassed all recovery criteria and are recovered. This ruling bolsters the case for Congress to update the Endangered Species Act.”
This follows a 2007 decision by the Department of Interior (DOI) to delist Yellowstone grizzlies, a decision that was also litigated by environmental groups and overturned by the federal courts.
“Despite this ruling, the basic facts remain the same: grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area have recovered, and no longer meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the ESA and should be rightfully returned to state management,” said Evan Heusinkveld, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation president and CEO. “This ruling is just another example of why we need comprehensive reforms to the way we manage ESA-listed species in this country. We are evaluating all of our legal options to appeal this ruling.”
The DOI announced the removal of Yellowstone area grizzlies, numbering more than 700, from the endangered species list in 2017 based on sound science and millions of hunter dollars spent on researching and studying the bears. Idaho and Wyoming later announced intentions to hold conservative management hunts in the fall of 2018. Those hunts will not take place.
Environmental groups claimed the grizzly population in the Yellowstone region would be decimated if delisted and placed under state management. They made the same claims for the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population which is 200 to 400 percent above minimum recovery goals, depending on the state.
“State-based management of wildlife is a key facet of the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. That is why the most healthy and robust wildlife populations in the world are found in North America. Grizzlies, like elk, wolves, deer and all other wildlife, should be managed by the states for their overall betterment. This ruling thoroughly frustrates that process,” added Weaver.
Share

Crossbow Not a Firearm, Not a “True” Bow

I got snickering a bit yesterday as I read V. Paul Reynolds article about crossbows and how certain rules regulating the use of crossbows for hunting have changed. In his article, he states: “The Maine Warden Service considers the crossbow not to be a firearm. The Maine Bowhunters Association (MBA) could never warm up to the medieval contraption, deeming it not a true bow.”

I’m not here to try to convince anybody about whether or not a crossbow should or shouldn’t be used as a weapon to kill certain game at certain times and in certain places. Instead, I’d rather talk about why some don’t like the idea because it ruffles their feathers in some odd fashion…I guess.

The Maine Warden Service, according to Reynolds, believes the crossbow “not to be a firearm.” This one is easy, provided this is the meaning of the comment that it isn’t a firearm and not that it isn’t a weapon that could be used for killing/hunting.

According to the dictionary, a firearm is a pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc. According to the BAFTE, a firearm is any weapon that uses an explosive to propel a projectile. So, technically a crossbow is not a firearm.

I’ve known for some time that the Maine Bowhunters Association has resisted allowing crossbows for hunting. I’ve read some members as saying it isn’t in the same category as “bow hunting” and that even the image of the crossbow somehow dirties the image of bow hunting in general. Oh, come on! Are we playing with the same notion that somehow the looks of a weapon determines its killing capacity?

It should always be remembered that opportunities to hunt are usually a good thing but that those opportunities are always going to be restricted by the desired and actual harvest of the game we are in pursuit of. Whether we hunt with a pistol, rifle, bow, crossbow, or a handful of rocks, biologists and hunting regulators are not going to allow us to kill too many animals.

Some have a problem with the so-called muzzleloader season for deer, believing the muzzleloader, a “primitive” weapon, is not a “true” gun of the modern era. It can and has been repeated that the modern muzzleloader is far from a primitive weapon.

Do muzzleloaders deserve their own special hunting season? Do crossbows deserve their own special hunting season? Do longbows deserve their own special hunting season? Does any weapon deserve its own special hunting season?

I would guess the crossbow is as much a true bow as a muzzleloader is a true rifle.

The longbow – is this the “true” bow? – has been around longer than the crossbow dating back to around 3,000 BC…maybe. Not long after this, the crossbow of a fashion was designed for warfare. Both weapons were designed for and used in warfare killing millions of people over the years.

A crossbow is not a firearm because it doesn’t fire. Why isn’t the crossbow a “true” bow? Probably for the same reason, that to some a muzzleloader is not a true rifle. In other words, they just plain don’t like the damned things.

Share

Bursting the Bubble of “Normal” Bear Behavior

If anyone might be interested to return to my seemingly endless commentary on bear behavior and bear attacks, they would discover that I’m a broken record when it comes to the sickening echo chamber of “bears don’t ‘normally’ act that way” and “bears don’t ‘normally’ attack people for no reason.” etc. And of course the most childish of all lame comments, “Bears are more afraid of you than you are of them.”

It never ends. When children don’t act the way we WANT them to, or what the indoctrination institutions and doctors consider “normal” behavior, we feed them chemicals to alter that behavior to make them “normal.”

“Normal” is a subjective issue that we have willingly given over to centralized authority and as such are slaves to their perspective of normal. Whatever doesn’t fit the “normal” mold is left either unexplained or simply passed off as an anomaly regardless of the frequency of not normal (by chosen perspective) behavior.

We can’t harness and drug bears. Instead, we insist on sticking to human-projected behavior patterns, framed around the bio-perverse obsession with protecting wild animals (large predators like bears) even at the expense of human life. In short, we want animals to be human-like and therefore project human characteristics onto animals.

A recent attack by two bears in Wyoming on a guide and his client has created a bit of a stir. The Media including Social Media and Internet websites have, once again, revealed to us the very reason we should NEVER believe ANYTHING we read on their platforms. Written accounts of the event have proven over and over to be inaccurate and yet the bad information gets embellished and passed along – and worst believed.

The brain trust – those who know more about everything than anyone else and has an “expert” opinion – have provided all the answers to any question asked and even those that haven’t.

In all of this, once again we are subjected to the vomit of the Media as they try to choke back their regurgitated nonsensical misinformation about bear behavior – and refuse to change.

I read this evening in the Newscentermaine.com website how we will probably never know why these two bears attacked two men attempting to retrieve a dead elk. The entire article is rife with terrible information that is formulated in the manner in which I described at the beginning of this piece.

Based mostly on the perverse need, having been indoctrinated into the minds of most American’s these days, to paint a completely positive aura about bears and other large predators, officials, brainwashed in their strong delusion that “bears don’t normally act this way,” now want to tell us we’ll never know why these bears attacked. Could it be that they attacked because they are BEARS??? Geez!

Here is a laundry list of nonsense repeated in this Online Media article:

“Wyoming wildlife officials say we may never know why a grizzly bear and her cub killed a hunting guide in an unusual and unprovoked attack.”

We are to believe that this attack was “unusual” because it doesn’t nicely and conveniently fit the narrative used to protect large predators. We are also to believe the attack was “unprovoked.” Try to understand how stupid that statement is. Because we refuse to understand that all animal behavior is unpredictable, this attack is called “unprovoked.” Obviously, something provoked the bears to attack, even if they were provoked by the simple fact that they are wild, unpredictable, large animals. Geez!

“We’re very fortunate that bears usually behave like bears should… But there are occasions where bears don’t behave like other bears.”

Once again, we are supposed to believe their inconsistent mantra that bears’ behavior is “normal” and predictable.

“Grizzlies don’t typically attack humans like that…”

Says who? Well, the authorities, that’s who. They don’t want anyone to have any ill feelings toward grizzly bears so they repeatedly tell us bears are afraid of us and are harmless except if you “surprise” them or meddle with cubs. B.S.!!! They even tell us bears are so harmless we can effectively protect ourselves by arming ourselves with bear spray – the same bear spray the guide used and died anyway. And note these same authorities who want you to carry bear spray so you won’t harm bears had to kill the same bear that attacked the guide and hunter with a rifle. Hmmm.

“Attacks are more commonly associated with either a surprise encounter… or if the bears were defending their food.”

None of my comments are intended to tell people this information about bear behavior isn’t true – it is just incomplete and saturated with the human condition foisted onto an animal. Each and every time authorities go out of their way, and the press becomes their echo chamber, to tell us how RARE it is that a bear, a wolf, a fox, a mountain lion, a bobcat – you name the animal – attacks someone, it’s unusual and not “normal” behavior. The truth is they don’t know what’s normal or abnormal behavior. If it fits their determined narrative, then it must be “normal.” Anything outside of that convenient narrative is just “unexplained,” as though it never happens but once in a million years. And yet we are always reading about those “unusual” and not “normal” attacks on people while refusing to change our understanding of wild animal behavior and do and say responsible things like, “______ attacks are considered to be not man-created normal behavior. All animals, wild and domestic can be and are unpredictable. You should always approach every animal in every situation as though just about anything will happen…including one of those ‘unprovoked’ attacks.”

But I’m not holding my breath waiting for them to change what they say.

Share

The Bear Spray That Didn’t Work

It was November 15, 2007, when I wrote an article on my former blog titled, “Bear Spray Versus Bullets.” This article came at a time when government authorities and members of so-called conservation groups (environmentalists) were claiming that bear spray was a better deterrent to saving your life than a gun when being attacked by a bear – specifically a grizzly bear. This difference of opinion has never really been resolved and probably won’t be.

I recall that it was only a couple days after I published that article I got a phone call from one of those “authorities” who was pushing the bear spray for protection meme. I assumed, and still do, this person had a financial stake in bear spray among other personal agenda reasons.

Regardless, I agreed to give him my mailing address and he promptly sent me a garbage pail full of propaganda that upon reading no more convinced me that spray was better than bullets than playing in the middle of Interstate 81 in Pennsylvania would be.

Most have heard by now that an experienced guide and an elk hunter were attacked by two grizzly bears in Wyoming. Both men were heading back into the woods to retrieve an elk the hunter had downed. The guide, Mark Uptain, was killed in the attack. The hunter was injured but not with life-threatening injuries. Exactly what happened at the scene remains to be known.

As is typical, reports as to what happened began making their rounds and what is also typical many of those reports turned out to be false. However, according to a report published in Ammoland, one thing is certain: “Mark Uptain appears to have relied on a can of bear spray to deter the attack. A can of bear spray, with the safety off, was found at the site. The adult sow grizzly had bear spray on her at the scene.”

So, the guide discharged his bear spray, and it got on the bear (although this report doesn’t say what part of the bear had spray on it, one would assume that bear spray placed anywhere except the face would be ineffective.)

Again, we come back to the burning question as to which is more effective in warding off a charging bear – spray or bullets. Maybe the real answer is contained in this same article: “The bear was shot and killed as she attacked investigating Fish and Wildlife personnel.”

It certainly looks like that while authorities were at the scene investigating this event, at least one of the two bears attacked Fish and Wildlife personnel. Why, as I pointed out in my 2007 article that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was heavily promoting spray over bullets, didn’t the FWS officials whip out their cans of bear spray and ward off that attacking bear? Did officials even have bear spray with them? Whether they intended to kill the two bears or not should have been of little concern. How did investigators know this particular bear was the bear that attacked and killed Mark Uptain?

Obviously, the agents doing the investigation believe bullets are better than spray.

Unfortunately, we now have evidence that in this one incident bear spray did not save one man’s life.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the irresponsible claims that spray is better than bullets. As I said in 2007, it depends upon many circumstances and each person has to decide for themselves how to protect themselves. Unfortunately, our own government is doing all that they can to force us to do it their way. Not necessarily the way they would and do it but how the government demands we do it.

The big question then should be this: If bear pepper spray is better for warding off an attacking bear, why did a government official(s) use a gun to do the job?

 

Share

WOHOOO! Maine IFW Enters Modern World of Tagging Game

Congratulations are definitely in order to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for going above and beyond anything I thought ever possible. They have entered the technology era and devised a system of an instant electronic game registration.

Even though MDIFW seems to be mired in their bad habit of silence in what they do with not one word made available that they were even working on this project, I am delighted to read the news.

The headline reads that hunters, agents, and MDIFW will benefit from this new-age system. And to flex their muscles, a press release (below) tells readers ALREADY how many bears have been registered in the first two weeks of the bear season.

In comparison, last year’s bear hunting season harvest had not been published on the website at the start of this year’s season.

And speaking of websites, it appears that MDIFW has rushed forward to remove the link on their website that takes users to the game harvest page, but I cannot see any link yet(?) to where I can get the harvest data that MDIFW is getting. Is that something that is going to be included in the hunter’s benefit of this new system? According to the press release, I have serious doubts that MDIFW will go that far. They may talk a big talk about working with “customers,” but seldom show it in the final run.

An examination of the Press Release may hold the answer that MDIFW does not intend to make this data readily available to the public on their website: “The new web based system is simpler and faster, and provides the department with real-time data concerning the harvest of animals. This allows the department to provide customers with information about deer or moose harvest numbers more quickly…” (emboldening added)

As lousy as MDIFW is in getting reports out to the public in any sense of responsibility, one has to wonder just how often they intend to notify the public as to harvest data. Hopefully, they can beat their average harvest reporting time schedule of about 6 months.

MDIFW is required by law to make this information available to the public. Can MDIFW skirt that requirement by occasionally publishing a few numbers? We will have to wait and see.

A real benefit for everyone would be that MDIFW creates a landing page on their website if for nothing else than to publish real-time registered game animals. That is not a difficult task to do.

It appears that my days of relentless bitching and moaning about MDIFW’s never publishing game harvest data are over. I sure hope this new system doesn’t give me other reasons to bitch and complain.

In the meantime, congratulations to Chandler Woodcock and MDIFW for finally undertaking this event and getting it operational at the start of the bear season. We will all look forward to its progress through the remainder of the bear season as well as moose and deer. We are also told next season this new system will be used for trapping season.

Wohooo!

Hunters, Agents, and MDIFW Benefit From New, Web-Based Registration System

AUGUSTA, Maine — A new, web based game registration system is up and running at tagging stations statewide, providing hunters, stations and the department with an efficient, easy to use system that benefits all.

“This new system will quickly allow tagging stations and hunters to register their animal, and also provide our biologists and game wardens with real-time harvest data,” said Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The new web-based system became operational the opening day of bear season, August 27, and has been providing instant data to department personnel about the progress of bear season.

Opening week of bear season, hunters registered 1,141 bears. Hunters have now registered a total of 2,826 bears for the season.

The system replaces the old game registration booklets, where agents used to fill in the data by hand. The books would be in possession of the agents until the end of the hunting seasons in December, and then shipped to Augusta where all data was entered by hand.

The new web based system is simpler and faster, and provides the department with real-time data concerning the harvest of animals. This allows the department to provide customers with information about deer or moose harvest numbers more quickly, as well as provide its biologists the information they need to make decisions on seasons and permit numbers in a much more timely manner.

The new system is a result of an intensive effort by the department’s Bureau of Resource Management, the Division of Licensing and Registration and the Bureau of the Warden Service collaborating with InforME to develop an online application that ensures reliable data while remaining easy to use for registration agents. MDIFW staff has been training the more than 300 stations on how to use the new system. For a complete list of tagging stations, please visit: https://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting-trapping/tagging-stations.html.

“With any new system, there’s always a few bumps, but we’ve had staff available to assist with this transition to the new system as well as a help line for agents provided by InforME,” said Woodcock. “We are also looking for feedback from our customers on how to improve the system.

The electronic registration program is the latest step in automating more of the services that MDIFW provides, which includes online applications for deer and moose permits, online licensing, electronic lawbooks and the electronic game registration program. These are designed to be provide customers with the information and services they need via simple and efficient access from almost anywhere.

This new system will be in place for game registration, and beginning next year, will be available for fur tagging as well.

Currently Maine is in the midst of bear season, which continues through November 24, 2018. The first week of moose season begins September 24 and the archery season for deer begins September 29. Maine has 215,000 licensed hunters. To obtain a license online or to learn more about hunting in Maine, visit www.mefishwildlife.com.

Share

Experienced Guide Killed by Attacking Grizzly

And the “brain trust” that have never been attacked by a bear have all the answers.

An experienced guide, while leading a hunter in Wyoming to retrieve a dead elk shot earlier, was attacked by a grizzly and killed. The hunter ran for his life.

Details of what specifically happened are lacking at this point. Some information can be found here, here, and here. At the last link, you can read all the comments from the intelligencers who have all the right answers and who have probably never seen a grizzly bear let alone be attacked by one.

Share