October 17, 2017

No Predator Control Leads to Increased Problems With Human Interaction

The insane Leftists who want large predators living in everyone’s backyard…except their own of course…continue to repeat the nonsense that in places where bear hunting and trapping, or bear baiting have been eliminated, the bear populations have remained steady, or dropped, and there have been no increase in bear/human encounters. How then does the Left explain the following story?

Officials with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CDEEP) say that bears in the Constitution State number about 700 and are growing at a rate of about 10% per year. In addition, problem complaints from residents are rising proportionately.

Members of New Jersey’s Sierra Club, who say the only “problem” with bears in Connecticut is lack of education to teach people how to live a life as a prisoner so bears can destroy anything they wish, also deliberately lie to say that in New Jersey, after instituting a bear hunt, nothing has changed. Officials with the CDEEP say the data they have on New Jersey shows a marked decrease in the number of bear/human interactions.

This, of course, is a great example of the “post normal” world in which we have been forced to live in. The end justifies the means and either side repeats anything they want, claiming it as “the truth” in order to fulfill their personal agendas.

What to believe and why should any of us believe anything anymore?

Added Note: This report claims that New Jersey’s bear population continues to grow and the overall bear population nationwide has doubled in more than a century to over 400,000.

 

Share

Not Knowing What’s Science and What’s Scientism

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine has placed a link to what they call “science” to prove – “this is the science proving” – that baiting bears changes the dynamics of the animals and the surrounding forests, where bears “could” cause damage to plants.

First off, the fake “study” is not science. It is the result of Scientism and a couple of students who set out to discredit in any way they could, hunting and in particular hunting bear using bait as one of the tools to accomplish the task. In other words, this is very typical of outcome based “scientific research.”

Scientism is nothing more than what some of us have come to recognize as “what scientists say and do.” It is also a dangerous and unrestrained credence of the power and authority realized from the manipulated field of science. This study is a fine example of how the scientific process is foregone and replaced with someone’s belief system because there is power in the publication of “studies.”

The scientific process is almost never followed anymore, due to a myriad of reasons, money being one of them along with political idealism and personal agendas.

Secondly, this “study” takes place within a national park in Canada, where black bears are protected. Without having data at my disposal, an intelligent supposition would be that in a park where black bears are protected, depending upon the cycle the bears were going through during the study period, there are probably too many bears in the park. Those dynamics differ greatly from areas where bears a responsibly managed and kept in check to meet management goals and social tolerances.

The study references bear baiting stations adjacent to the park placed there by hunters. Not all hunters are stupid and thus they realize that with too many bears in the park, perhaps a good place to set up a bait station and a tree stand would be adjacent to the park. Does this tactic actually result in increasing the odds of bagging a bear? I dunno. Neither do the researchers.

The short of all this is that the “scientists” chose a location for their study that is far from being typical of the vast forests that make up Canada and parts of the U.S. So, the dynamics of bears and their habitat is not what one might expect to find in the majority of the rest of the world. Observations might prove interesting but for what purpose other than political?

So, what good then is the study? I alluded to that above. And when the study was all said and done, the authors state that with hunters having baiting stations adjacent to the park, bears “could” cause some damage to the trees and vegetation. I wonder if this “could” happen even if the bait stations weren’t there. Did the “scientists” set up a comparative study area outside of the park, in a location more typical of the forests?

The purpose of the study, more than likely, has been exemplified as we see an animal rights, environmental group emotionally grasping at anything, even when it doesn’t even closely resemble the scientific process, to promote their totalitarian agendas aimed at ending a lifestyle they don’t agree with.

The Wildlife Alliance of Maine, in their posting (on Facebook?) states that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t consider this dynamic change possible. Actually, I’ve never heard or read anywhere that MDIFW doesn’t believe that baiting bear changes the dynamics of the forest in places where bear are being baited. It doesn’t take a science degree to understand that any and all “changes” within a forest ecosystem can and will have an effect on the dynamics between animal and ecosystem. It then is left to a person’s, or a group of person’s, perspective on what they want to see or have before them.

I think that it is wrong to make a statement about MDIFW of this kind. MDIFW has made it perfectly clear from the beginning that they would like to continue with baiting bear as a tool to help keep the growth of black bears in check in order to assume responsible management of a healthy bear population. Should numbers of bears drop to management’s desired levels, I’m quite certain that MDIFW would cease bear baiting.

But, within this entire debate, both sides cherry-picking convenient products of Scientism to bolster their arguments, in the grand scheme of things, there is so little baiting going on anywhere that it is akin to somebody dumping a cup of coffee into Sebago Lake (47.68 sq. miles) and declaring that the lake dynamics have changed and thus the lake has gone to hell.

Share

Man Attacked By Bear – Fails to “Look Big”

*Editor’s Note* – Even though we can continuously read, day after day of yet another bear attack on a man, they never happen, or are extremely rare.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Obviously, this man was hauled down from a tree more than one time because he failed to “LOOK BIG.”

“A bowhunter was dragged from his tree stand and mauled by a black bear recently. He resorted to stabbing the bear repeatedly with an arrow until it broke off the attack.”<<<Read More>>>

 

Share

Maine Fish and Wildlife Sets New Record

A record for losers!

Before the 2018 bear season begins, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) finally releases the bear harvest report for 2016, setting a new record for being the latest it has ever been reported.

The top five slowest years have all occurred in the past 10 years. At this rate, the report will be done away with completely in a few years leaving interested sportsmen further guessing as to just what is going on.

Lousy business as usual.

Total Bear Kills By Year

For some, I guess they would congratulate the MDIFW for publishing the bear, deer and moose harvest reports for 2016. However, it seems a deliberate attempt to withhold information from the public by waiting until after or just before the start of the next year’s hunting seasons before publishing the data.

 

 

Share

Fish and Wildlife Management is a Laughing Stock, Unless You Are an Environmentalist

While the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) pat themselves on the back for all the outstanding work they have done (every child gets a trophy), some of us are wishing that a little of that effort would be focused on better deer and moose management.

To justify an increase of 60% in Any-Deer Permits (ADP), MDIFW says Maine has had two “mild” winters in a row and thus there are now too many deer in some places and we got to get rid of them. What’s confusing is that some of those places that got increases in ADPs, last winter saw record-breaking amounts of snow and continue to see extremely poor deer hunting. Evidently snow no longer is a factor is calculating severe and mild winters. Little did I know.

But if you take a moment and read through the “everybody gets a trophy” recognition is given to looking out for piping plovers, arctic char, bats, updating the website, selling licenses, shuffling papers and creating more regulations, with not one award listed for deer management, moose management or even bear management.

To make sure we understand this, license fees from hunters, fishermen, trappers, etc. pays for the operation of MDIFW and yet all the awards and recognition goes to the list above. This, of course, is the result of the direction that Maine and every other state in the Union has taken, turning their fish and game departments into carrying out the goals of environmentalism – totalitarian socialists doing the bidding for the fascists and liking every minute of it. They never learned that this, historically, is always followed by communism. Today the brainwashed would labeled this “fake news.”

Unfortunately, this is only recognized by a handful of people who still have their heads mostly screwed on the right way. Otherwise, the majority of people, think that using my dollars I spend on a hunting license to make sure piping plovers get everything they need, while at the same time restricting access by taxpayers to beaches near nesting sites, is a good thing. Evidently they need to entice more people to buy hunting licenses, at the expense of the deer, in order to buy those “everybody gets a trophy.”

At the present rate of declension, only a short time remains before hunting and trapping are regulated and forced out of existence because of the influence of Sustainable Development’s Environmentalism.

I stand as a distinct minority in my judgement as to how I perceive fish and wildlife departments nationwide…But that doesn’t make my perspective wrong.

Share

IFW News — Bear Season Starts Monday, Youth Bear Hunting Day is Saturday

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine’s bear season begins on Monday, August 28 throughout the state of Maine, and youth hunters get their own day on Saturday, August 26. Last year, 10,936 hunters purchased a permit to hunt bear, with 2,859 hunters harvesting a bear for a success rate of 26%.

“Conditions look promising for hunters to have a better year than last year, but just how successful hunters are depends on the abundance of natural foods and how long those natural foods remain available” said IFW Bear Biologist Jen Vashon.

Maine’s black bear population is closely monitored by Department biologists through one of the most extensive, longest-running biological studies in the U.S. The study began in 1975 and continues today. Over nearly 40 years, Department biologists have captured and tracked over 3,000 bears to determine the health and condition of Maine’s bears and estimate how many cubs are born each year.

“Over that time, our research has shown that when natural foods are in low supply, hunters have more success taking a bear since bears are more likely to seek out other food sources,” said Vashon.

Maine’s bear season is divided into three segments, as hunters can hunt with bait from August 28 to September 23, hunters can hunt with dogs from September 11 to October 27, and hunters can still hunt or stalk bear from August 28 to November 25. Maine has one of the longest bear seasons in the country since Maine has one of the largest bear population estimated at over 36,000 animals. In addition to a season that starts in August and ends after Thanksgiving, Maine allows hunters to take two bears, one by hunting and one by trapping.

In 2016, hunters harvested 2,859 bear and 68% were taken over bait, 21% with dogs, 2% by deer hunters, 1% by still-hunting or stalking prior to deer season, and 4% in traps. The remaining 4% was taken without the method of harvest being reported.

Even with the lengthy bear season, only about 25% of all bear hunters are successful. By contrast, 75% of moose hunters were successful last year, turkey hunters enjoy success rates between 30-35% and deer hunters in Maine are successful 14-18% of the time. Young hunters will once again get their own day on Saturday, August 26. Youth hunters who have a junior hunting license can hunt bear with a firearm, bow, or crossbow on this day. Youth hunters may hunt bear with the use of bait, or still hunt; however the use of dogs during youth hunting day is prohibited. Last year, 27 youth hunters were successful in taking a bear on youth day.

Youth hunters may hunt only in the presence of an adult supervisor who is at least 18 years of age. The adult supervisor may not possess a firearm, bow, or crossbow while the youth hunter is participating in the bear hunt. Any person who accompanies a junior hunter other than the parent or guardian, must either possess a valid adult hunting license or have successfully completed a hunter education course.

While the abundance of natural foods this year is likely to impact hunters, in-state research shows that it is also what drives nuisance bear complaints. In years when there is a good natural food crop, the numbers of complaints drop. In poor natural food years, nuisance complaints increase.

Over a span of 40 years, Maine’s bear study has shown that not only does the availability of natural foods drive bear cub survival and bear birth rates, but it also directly influences when bears den for the winter, as well as hunter success rates. In poor natural food years, hunter success is higher than in years when natural food is abundant.

Successful bear hunters are reminded that it is mandatory to submit a tooth from their bear when registering. Tagging agents will provide envelopes and instructions to hunters as to how to remove the tooth. Biologists age the tooth, and the biological data collected help biologists adjust season lengths and bag limits for bears.

In August, hunters can learn the age of the bear they harvested the previous season by visiting www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting_trapping/hunting/bear/index.htm.
Hunters and trappers must have a bear permit in addition to a big game hunting or trapping license to harvest a bear in Maine.

However, during the deer firearm season, resident hunters can harvest a bear without a bear permit. Bear hunting is most popular and bear populations are the densest in the northern and downeast regions of the state.

Share

The Ethics of Baiting Deer….or Any Other Game Animal

Maine has recently passed a law prohibiting the “feeding” of deer from August 15th to December 15. This Act was supported by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), which should be no surprise as we know MDIFW has tried for years to ban the act of feeding deer at anytime.

However, the real issue, I think, is the prevention of “baiting” deer for the purpose of improving your chances of taking a deer during the archery, rifle or muzzleloader seasons.

In V. Paul Reynolds article this week, he says that in this debate about baiting deer, ethics should be part of the discussion. But ethics of any kind, can be a very sticky wicket.

Who decides what is ethical? For years I have written about ethics as it may apply to hunting and still believe, within the written laws, ethics is a personal perspective.

I support the baiting of bear for harvest purposes because there is a need to limit or reduce the growth of the black bear populations in Maine. It is my understanding that the MDIFW mostly sees the bear baiting issue much the same way. In short, it is a necessary management tool, even if it perceived by some as ugly. Without this tool, the alternative may be even uglier.

Because most of Maine has few deer and historically the state has never really been overrun with deer, the need to call for the implementation of baiting as a management tool to reduce numbers, has never been necessary and is definitely not needed today.

But this really has little to do with ethics. I’m not a bear hunter but I can clearly say that if I was, I would NOT bait – unless, of course, I was very, very hungry. I am a deer hunter and I would NOT bait deer for much the same reasons. I don’t necessarily object to those who choose to bait their game, where legal, but I personally would not care to implement baiting regardless of how, if any, doing so effects the odds of bagging game.

I have often read those who define ethics as, “what you do when nobody’s watching.” While this may be partially true, personal ethics goes beyond whether or not someone chooses to stay within the bounds of regulations. Short of legitimate regulations to guide the scientific management of game animals, it should NEVER be left up to Government to attempt legislating ethics. When you consider the corrupt and unethical existence of Government at all levels, surely one cannot seriously ask such an entity to make the decisions as to what is ethical and not ethical.

We have been brainwashed and manipulated into a totalitarian form of existence in which one of the greatest problems in today’s society is that “useful idiots,” i.e. the totalitarian sheep, believe it is their right and their duty of conquest to tell others how to live.

To what degree ethics should be discussed in this debate about baiting deer, would be a crap shoot and more than likely would only serve to create more problems. Within the laws of man, whether or not we agree with them, my personal ethics should remain as such…personal. If I strongly believe in my own ethical practices, perhaps, and I mean perhaps, I might share that philosophy with friends…if they care to know. Besides that, I mind my own business and expect that same respect in return.

Here is a link to the story of how Maine’s record Boone and Crockett buck was shot over a pile of “bait” – culled potatoes.

Share

More Bear Attack Survival Advice From Someone Who Obviously Hasn’t Been Attacked

It has always tickled me that “experts” or wannabe experts are at liberty to hand out gads of advice on how to survive an attack by a bear. To my knowledge, I’ve never heard or read anybody’s advice who has actually been attacked by a bear. But that doesn’t stop people from telling you what to do…right or wrong.

The latest, mostly nonsense, comes to us from an article found on Pajamas Media – “How to Survive a Bear Attack in America.” Are we to guess that none of this advice will work outside of America? Or is it that only American bears attack people?

The first mistake the author makes is to very quickly give advice to never “play dead” when being attacked by a bear because this act “can quickly lead to actual death.” A bit later in the article, the author advises, “If the grizzly charged you because it considered you to be a threat, you’ll want the bear to think you’ve passed on. Once the bear believes that you are a harmless corpse, the chances are really good that it’ll give up and move on.”

Perhaps the best advice is to not pay heed to this guy’s advice.

It also appears that this guy has full faith and confidence in bear spray as the only way to ward off an attacking bear. I wonder if he’s ever used it? Hope that the wind isn’t blowing when the attack happens. However, read this insane explanation about which kind of bear spray to use: “Both bear spray and normal pepper spray contain oleoresin capsicum, the chemical found in chili peppers that gives a nasty burning sensation when sprayed in the faces of humans and bears, but the difference is that bear spray contains 80-90 percent less of the noxious chemical than regular pepper spray. That’s because pepper sprays aren’t intended to incapacitate a grizzly, it’s designed to surprise and scare the hulking creature away from you; using pepper spray that was made for use on human goons on a bear is overkill!”

Seriously? Think about it for a minute. I agree that if I were being attacked by “human goons” I would want the most powerful spray available, or better yet the most powerful handgun on the planet today. But the same holds true for a damned attacking bear. Why would I care if I was using “overkill” to stop an attacking bear? The damned bear is probably about to rip me to shreds and I should be concerned over whether or not I’m using too much of a deterrent? Only an idiot thinks this way.

You can’t make this stuff up. Only a willing participant in this animal-perverse society would be concerned about harming the bear and not giving a rat’s hind end about harming another person.

According to this clown, if you are being attacked by a polar bear, you might as well pull out that most powerful handgun in the world and blow your brains out. He suggests that if the non “overkill” bear spray doesn’t work (huh?), “use whatever weapon you have available.”  Isn’t that “overkill?” If there’s a chance the bear spray isn’t going to work on a charging bear, why not carry a weapon that will?

I love this suggestion. Okay, so you are being attacked by a polar bear. According to this guy, “Avoid the enraged, starving polar bear’s powerful jaws and massive meat hook claws.”

Yes, the last time I was having a fight with a polar bear, I survived by using Mohammed Ali’s famed, “Rope a Dope.” I was able to avoid the powerful claws and jaws, kicked the bear in the nuts and while it was bent over in pain I remembered the advice to “back away slowly and cautiously.”

I am especially amused when experts give lip service to the reasons why bears might attack a person. It seems that in their pea brains the only reasons are either they are hungry or pissed off at you. Evidently this author suggests that the tactics you use against a hungry bear are different than from an angry bear. However, the author doesn’t expertly tell us how to tell the difference. Perhaps you could just ask the bear.

Always the advice to “scare off” an attacking bear is to “LOOK BIG!” This author in question doesn’t actually give that advice. The closest he comes is to tell readers to “stand tall.” Once you’ve calmly taken up the “tall” stance, then commence to kick the shit out of the bear. Works every time!

If you encounter a bear, any kind of bear in any kind of setting, it’s a crap shoot. If you come armed so as not to harm the bear with “overkill” then chances are you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the sake of the bear. God bless you! No matter how much experts want to pretend they know something, they don’t. Animals don’t think like humans and the more humans pretend to believe that animals rationalize things like people do, the more trouble you are likely to get into. When a person tells you that, “bear don’t like surprises,” what, exactly, are they basing that premise on? I can tell you. It’s Romance Biology and Voodoo Science. We want so much to rationalize a bear’s behavior based upon our own. It just doesn’t work that way.

Remember, after all this advice, consider the idea, BEFORE heading into bear country, that perhaps a bear will attack you just because it wants to.

Share

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

One Bear, Two Bears, Three Bears, Four

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has yet to publish black bear harvest data on their website. So far, this is the second longest it has taken the Department to count bears. How long does it take to count bears? Oh, yeah! It’s the teeth that slows them down. RIGHT!

Share