August 19, 2017

RMEF Reaffirms Support of Public Lands

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—In light of continuing chatter and rhetoric aimed at privatizing federal public lands, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation continues to advocate its support for keeping public lands in the hands of America’s citizens.

“The 640 million acres of public land across the United States play a highly significant role in our wildlife system,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Without them, our management system, which is the most successful in the world, would crumble and the health of our wildlife populations would deteriorate.”

Allen publicly challenged Steve Hanke, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, who called on the government to sell public lands to private ownership in a recent issue of Forbes magazine.

“We cannot afford to play games here. What we need is a focused, pro-active land management approach for our public land assets in this country. RMEF will not waiver on supporting public lands but we are seeking better habitat management and the resources to make that happen,” said Allen.

Allen highlighted a recent elk migratory study by Dr. Arthur Middleton that shows how critical public lands are to the survival of elk in the Greater Yellowstone region.

“We have to manage our public lands with more of a focus on wildlife,” added Allen.

RMEF maintains its decades-long position that public lands must remain public and that such land needs to be managed for the benefit of wildlife and public access but especially for the overall health of forests, grassland and waterways.

Since 1984, RMEF and its partners completed nearly 11,000 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects with a combined value of more than $1 billion. These projects conserved or enhanced more than 7.1 million acres of wildlife habitat.

Share

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share

Here Comes Season Seven of RMEF Team Elk

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—Elk hunting adventures highlight the upcoming seventh season of RMEF Team Elk, presented by Cabela’s.

Team Elk remains one of the most unique hunting shows in all of outdoor television. It’s all elk, all the time,” said Steve Decker, RMEF vice president of Marketing. “It gives us the opportunity to highlight and promote the hunting culture and offer insight about the link between hunting and conservation.”

Season seven of RMEF Team Elk begins the week of June 26 and airs Sundays at 9:00 p.m., Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. and Fridays at 12:00 p.m. (all Mountain time) on the Outdoor Channel.

Hosted by Brandon Bates, the new episodes feature a first responder from Texas chasing elk in New Mexico, a NASCAR driver who exchanges life in the fast lane for a bow during the Montana rut, a father-teenage daughter adventure, several father-son outings, a woman who chases elk for her first time in Colorado and memorable hunts in Utah and other locations.

In addition to Cabela’s, other RMEF Team Elk sponsors include ALPS OutdoorZ, Bloodsport, Bog-Pod, Browning, Browning Ammunition, Buck Knives, Danner, Eberlestock, Mathews, MTN OPS, Peak/BlueDef, Sitka, Yamaha, YETI Coolers and Zeiss.

“We appreciate our conservation partners for their dedicated support of elk, elk country and the RMEF,” added Decker.

Share

Renowned Conservationist, RMEF Promote Relevance of Hunting

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—In an effort to promote a wider public conversation about the positive connections between hunting and wildlife conservation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation partnered with widely-respected conservationist and wildlife researcher Shane Mahoney to release a timely and evocative short film titled Relevance.

The video, which discusses the modern relevance of hunting traditions, especially in terms of conservation benefits, is the first product generated as part of a new and ongoing collaboration between RMEF and Mahoney.

“Shane is one of the world’s leading voices for conservation,” said Steve Decker, RMEF’s vice president of Marketing. “His message about hunting’s role in society showcases the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, certainly one of the most successful systems of wildlife recovery and management the world has ever seen. Shane’s message resonates not only among sportsmen and women, but also with those who do not hunt or fish but who share in the concern for wildlife’s future.”

The film’s narrative is borrowed from Mahoney’s keynote address, delivered at RMEF’s 2017 National Convention earlier this year in Nashville.

Mahoney, a long-time RMEF member, is the president and CEO of Conservation Visions, a global wildlife initiative focused on international conservation issues.

“Hunting is sometimes incorrectly viewed as a self-indulgent and wasteful anachronism in modern society,” says Mahoney. “However, we know, from an objective perspective, that sustainable use of wildlife can be an effective tool in support of conservation and human livelihoods; it is connected to the conservation of wild lands and waters, the environment, and our own food security.”

In 2015, Mahoney launched the Wild Harvest Initiative, a multi-year research and communication effort supported by RMEF and a diverse partnership of individuals, business interests, conservation NGOs and government agencies. The project’s mission is to provide a first-ever evaluation of the biomass and economic value of wild food harvested by recreational hunters and anglers in Canada and the United States and to assess the wider community of consumers who share in this harvest. By conjoining these insights with existing economic assessments of recreational hunting and angling, and by evaluating the costs and mechanisms that might be considered necessary to replace this wild food harvest, the Wild Harvest Initiative will help focus a wider question facing conservation policy institutions in both countries; namely, if hunting and angling were to cease tomorrow, what would be the consequences?

RMEF and Mahoney will work together on future projects as part of RMEF’s ongoing#HuntingIsConservation campaign, which has reached more than 30 million people since its launch in January 2016.

Share

Nature Balances Itself Unless I Say It Doesn’t (Fits My Narrative)

Stupid people want to believe what they want to believe because….well, they are stupid. One of the giant echo-chambers, ad nauseam, is that “nature balances itself.” Short of debating what nature and balance is, honestly educated people understand that balance in nature is not the idealistic Disney movie they have been taught…but few are capable.

Included in the echo-chambers of filthy perversion we also hear that wolves are an “apex” predator. There is only one apex predator and we walk upright on two legs…period. We are told that wolves are important and a necessary part of our ecosystems because they “balance out our ecosystems.” What fantasy! What nonsense! What hypocrisy!

However, somebody always has a “study” to prove their romantic, biological, perverse and extremely stupid assumptions about the role of wolves in our fields and forests.

But what nonsense, fantasy and hypocrisy. Consider the latest tripe about another new “study” that concludes that wolves need more room to do what wolves do. No, you can’t make this crap sandwich up. Somebody stupid has to dream it up and so they have. “Wirsing co-authored a new study in the journal Nature Communications. He said current land management policies don’t offer apex predators enough space, but that doesn’t mean he wants to see wolves roaming rampant across North America. ??

“We need to allow predators to occupy more landscapes than just remote, protected areas,” Wirsing said. “On the other hand, we also need to heavily manage them, recognizing that they do conflict with people.””

Unless you’re incapable of basic understanding, try to understand what this person is saying. First he calls the wolf an apex predator. In the context of what is written, there must be several “apex predators” in his mind. How can that be? He says wolves don’t have enough space, and that they need to be “allowed to roam” and be “heavily managed.”

What happened to balance of nature and the wolf that changes the paths of rivers and streams? Why does anything, according to the environmentally insane, need to be managed or heavily managed, if nature balances itself out? And if the wolf is so damned wonderful and powerful, and does all these clowns say it does, and is a necessary and important part of our ecosystems, why can’t the wolf create its own space?

If the wolf is an apex predator, that means the wolf is not prey to any other animal…I guess including man. I ask again, if this is at all true, why doesn’t the wolf create its own space?

Morons want their cake and eat it too. They want wolves to retain a status in excess of the existence of man. And yes, many prefer the lives of wolves over the lives of man. They mouth that “nature” balances itself and that when it is not in balance it is because of the evils of man. Once they have fought for that false idol, then they can manage everything else as it fits their narratives and fulfills their agendas – but somehow it’s not management and manipulation. This appears to be the ultimate in insanity, in which these gODS of the ecosystems kill anything, man, beast of plant, to save whatever the animal worship of the day might be.

A simple honest read-search of history, reveals to us that wolves did once exist in many places in North America. That was when essentially there were few people around. The environmentalists readily admit that man did a number on wolves as they settled the landscapes from East to West. It happened. It was going to happen. It could not be stopped. That is how things are. It sucks to hate man so much that you would prefer the existence of any animal over theirs. Now, with idiots in charge, although they won’t necessarily come right out and say it, we have a choice – either man goes or the wolves go.

Why do you think they are so persistent with forcing wolves into our backyards and onto our ranches and farms? Wolves DO NOT belong in man-settled landscapes.

Share

Elk Habitat Conserved in Washington’s Lewis River Watershed

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—Nearly 4,500 acres of prime wildlife habitat in southwestern Washington are permanently protected and opened to public access thanks to ongoing collaborative efforts by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and PacifiCorp, an electric utility company.

“This is a tremendous accomplishment,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “This forestland is crucial habitat for Roosevelt elk. It’s now forever protected and conserved in a region where designation of the Mount St. Helens National Monument restricts management options.”

“Conserving and managing this habitat on the southwest slopes of Mount St. Helens, where elk are threatened by forage loss from forest succession and habitat loss to development is a just part of PacifiCorp’s ongoing commitment to environmental stewardship,” said Todd Olson, the company’s compliance director. “We highly value the partnership with the RMEF and the other parties that makes this possible.”

The just-completed 1,880-acre acquisition is the third phase of a project that previously protected an additional 2,590 acres of habitat in the upper Lewis River basin north of Swift Reservoir.

The combined 4,470-acre property was originally in a checkerboard ownership pattern. It is now blocked up and provides connectivity with state and federal lands to the north and is part of a 15,000-acre landscape managed as wildlife habitat by PacifiCorp. This management is conducted with input from RMEF, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and resource agencies.

“Federal forests near Mount St. Helens are overgrown and contributed to the decline of what was once one of Washington’s most productive elk herds. This project greatly improves forest management which is a huge benefit for elk and other wildlife,” added Henning.

The landscape provides vital elk migratory corridors and is home to blacktail deer, black bear, mountain lions and a wide array of bird and other animal life.

With few exceptions to provide public safety, PacifiCorp wildlife lands are open to non-motorized public access including hunting and other recreation.

Share

Dear Montana Wolf Hunter: Do You Have a Strong Emotional Bond With Wolves?

Think about this one…if you are at all capable. It appears the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department sent out a wolf management survey to some of the residents. What’s not clear to me is exactly who the survey was mailed to. I wonder because the letter (shown below) that accompanied the survey, is addressed this way: “Dear Resident Wolf Hunter.” If the survey was only sent to Montana resident wolf hunters, then the question needs to be asked why did the survey include Questions 12 and 25? (Shown below)

Question 12 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think “the rights of wolves” are more important than the interests of humans. Doesn’t that tell us a lot of where the perspective on wildlife and animals is and where it is going? I need to ask, why you would ask a Montana Resident Wolf Hunter, whose goal, I am to assume, is to kill a wolf….or five, would be interested in “the rights of wolves” or other socially retarded, emotional, clap-trap, insane issues as wolf rights and emotional bonds, among others?

But it gets worse. Question 25 wants to know if Montana Resident Wolf Hunters think wolves should have the same rights as people, hunting is disrespectful to animals, have a “strong emotional bond,” and the list is nauseating to read. Only a mentally ill quack would think up such questions.

Yesterday in a radio interview I talked of how our society has become so perverse toward animals, placing them at an existence level higher than man, that it was an abomination unto Yehwah.

The idea that any managers of wildlife would ask such insane and perverse questions says a lot about the status of our mentally deranged society and drives home the reality that hunting, trapping and fishing are rapidly headed toward its end. Don’t kid yourself. There is no hope.

In my opinion, this survey was either sent to a random sampling of Montana residents, disguised as a survey for Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, whose objective is to be able to publish results of this survey that contain mostly or all non hunting residents to manipulate public opinion. Or, they are sending this survey only to Montana Resident Wolf Hunters, and as a reflection of the positions, policies and values of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, are attempting to continue the brainwashing of as many hunters as they can to effect the gradual, perverse changes that they intend for all the rest of us.

Psalm 36: Wickedness saith to the wicked man,even in mine heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes.

For he flattereth himself in his own eyes, while his iniquity is found worthy to be hated.

The words of his mouth are iniquity and deceit: he hath left off to understand and to do good.

He imagineth mischief upon his bed: he setteth himself upon a way, that is not good, and doth not abhor evil.

Thy mercy, O Lord, reacheth unto the heavens, and thy faithfulness unto the clouds.

Thy righteousness is like the mighty mountains: thy judgments are like a great deep: thou Lord, dost save man and beast.

How excellent is thy mercy, O God! therefore the children of men trust under the shadow of thy wings.

They shall be satisfied with the fatness of thine house, and thou shalt give them drink out of the river of thy pleasures.

For with thee is the well of life, and in thy light shall we see light.

10 Extend thy loving-kindness unto them that know thee, and thy righteousness unto them that are upright in heart.

11 Let not the foot of pride come against me, and let not the hand of the wicked men move me.

12 There they are fallen that work iniquity: they are cast down, and shall not be able to rise.

Share

Maine Gov. “Invasive Species” Portal Evidently Intended to Keep Environmentalists and Animal Righters Happy

The State of Maine has evidently developed, or is developing, a website portal geared at addressing concerns over invasive species. It appears there is concern about invasive fish and marine wildlife, along with invasive plants, diseases and parasites that might effect plants including agricultural crops, but there appears to be something missing from this portal. Where is the section about invasive animals? Surely there are invasive animals that pose just as a big a threat to Maine’s ecosystems than odd fish and the spreading of some plants.

If I were to pick just one invasive wild animal that is very destructive to Maine, I would have to pick the coyote. It’s easy for most, including employees at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), to address only the obvious about coyotes, i.e. killing deer, lynx, livestock, turkeys, grouse, etc. but it is exceptionally inconvenient to discuss the more than 30 diseases and parasites the mixed breed canine spreads throughout the state.

We already know, and the MDIFW has done a superb job of covering up the disease, that moose are now victims of what the department prefers to call “lungworm.” Lungworm is a common man’s term for Hytadid disease from the parasite Echinococcus granulosus. The diseases cause the growth of tumors in the lungs, liver, heart, and other places hindering the moose from having the best physical conditioning to escape predator danger. Because moose are known to be infected, it’s only a matter of time before deer will become so and any and all other wildlife ungulates and livestock, including sheep, cows, and pigs.

The Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) parasite is carried and spread by coyotes, along with as many, if not more, than thirty other diseases. Oh, and did I mention that E.g. can be deadly to humans?

As populations of coyotes persist and grow across Maine, livestock, pets, and humans will be at risk from these diseases.

But we mustn’t talk about this because we are talking about an animal that some mentally ill people prefer to protect and perpetuate than insure the health of our people and the health and proper management of our wildlife and ecosystems in general.

However, consider the following information. It was brought to my attention a short time ago when a colleague asked how any species can be invasive. The answer was more or less simple. The species must come from outside of the Firmament, i.e. the earth, and the “waters above” and the “waters below.”

Man evidently has made the decision that starting at some random point in history, species that existed and where they were found would be how things must be kept. Odd and ironic that environmentalists love their wolves and other wild canines. They love to tell people how that millions of years ago “it is believed” that wolves/coyotes came to North America over that infamous “ice bright” somewhere around the Bering Straits. Beginning at that time, and moving forward, evidently everything else might be an invasive species. It would seem to me that if the wolf/coyote migrated here over an “ice bridge” during a period of “global cooling” (was that NOT a natural event?) then it was either an invasive species or there are no such things as invasive species.

Evidently an invasive species is some kind of plant or animal life that upsets the environmental narrative. If it’s on this “planet” how can it be invasive? And who left which man to be in charge of deciding at what point of time in history a line is drawn and any movement of plant or animal after that point is considered invasive and therefore not wanted. It would appear that using this same kind of thinking, or lack there of, that a strong argument could be made that the United States of America corporation is made up almost entirely by “invasive species” of humans.

The hypocrisy in all this is that the environmentalists want to control everything about our environment and ecosystems, but only to the point of which they want it. All else is wrong. Management of wildlife as a resource for food and products (hunting, fishing and trapping) evidently is unacceptable manipulation but playing gODs and deciding what stays and what goes is alright.

Doesn’t make much sense at all, but H.L. Menken, reminded us, that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Share

Wolves Don’t Change Rivers

“Yes, you heard that right. The wolves that were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park in 1995 have not restored the landscape. They have not brought back the aspens and willows. They have not brought back the beavers or the songbirds. And no, the rivers have not changed, either.

Then why does “How Wolves Change Rivers” (HWCR) claim otherwise? Because the creators of the four-minute long viral video (now approaching 20 million hits just via YouTube) “are adherents to romance biology,” according to former USFWS biologist Jim Beers. Plus, the whole notion of Yellowstone as wilderness is “inherently racist,” argues wildlife biologist Dr. Charles Kay. I spoke with both Jim Beers and Dr. Kay in preparing this article. Dr. Kay was especially put out by the video’s claims.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

It’s Always About Habitat: It’s What’s Easiest to See

Several years ago I asked the question that if Maine’s loss of a deer herd was mostly to be blamed on loss of habitat, including so-called “Deer Wintering Areas” (DWA), then why are there many acres of DWAs throughout Maine that are now empty during the winter months or have reduced numbers of deer in them? One would think that if there’s less habitat/DWA that more deer would be crowded into available space.

I’ve never received an honest answer and know that I never will.

It’s much easier to bitch and complain about loss of habitat. Why? People can look out the windows of their climate-controlled SUVs and see trees that have been cut down. That equates to man is a destructive, non caring, greedy SOB and their actions are killing all the animals and plant life.

Of course I am forced to attempt to explain to the emotional, mental midgets, that habitat is vitally important for all living things…that is ALL LIVING THINGS. Last time I checked I was a living thing, although some mornings I wonder.

Realizing also that there are many who don’t understand that good habitat for a yellow warbler isn’t necessarily the same as good habitat for a Canada lynx. In addition, because habitat changes or is changed deliberately by the actions of man, does not necessarily mean some animals and plants die or are in danger of going extinct, as media and environmental groups state for the purpose of playing on our emotions.

In short, wildlife will adapt and in some cases certain species are more readily equipped to adapt than others.

A decade ago I wrote about predator/prey relationships, which included information about which negative influences had the most effect on prey. In other words, it is easy for most people, lacking any knowledge or understanding of facts, to continue their perverse hatred to the existence of man (excluding themselves of course) to say that hunting kills more deer, elk, moose, bear, etc. than any of the other influences. However, that’s not true, as you might discover if you bothered to take the time to learn.

If you take the time to read the article at the above link, you may learn something about those relationships. Along with your learning, you might discover that protecting habitat, believing the act will mitigate prey losses, is not going to achieve what most people think it will.

If it was a fact that loss of habitat was the major factor in the loss of deer in the State of Maine, then we might expect that protecting and or growing that habitat will help. Saying it is and proving that it is are not the same thing.

I applaud those major landowners who have volunteered to work with the fish and game people to come up with ways of protecting deer habitat, including DWAs, but doing so will not grow the deer herd because habitat is not the largest factor in the loss of deer. Understand loss of habitat may be the major contributor in some areas, but statewide it is not the major problem.

According to all the excuses, climate change and severe winters are the two items that kill the most deer. Are they? Climate change be damned. To believe that climate change is killing deer is to believe that deer cannot survive in warmer climates, when the facts are the opposite. So, then, the deer herd should be growing, right? It is also to believe that such effects happen overnight. Why don’t more people ask deer managers why, if climate change is killing our deer, that severe winters are still killing deer?

When deer managers fall heavily on these excuses, toss in the sob story of how loss of habitat is putting management over the edge, why bother to even have a fish and wildlife management department? According to what we hear, nothing about deer management is within their control. We’re all going to die!

Evidently, while all this is going on, we’ve come to be taught that whitetail deer are worthless creatures incapable of adapting to a changing environment. There is hope, however, when one of Maine’s wildlife biologists was caught saying that there is a “new normal” when it comes to understanding deer behavior. Essentially he stated that increased predator pressure, combined with the public’s deer feeding programs, have changed how deer are spending their winters. Could this be the answer I’m looking for as to why many, many acres of traditional DWAs are going unused? It appears perhaps the deer have adapted but the deer managers are many years behind.

Expending effort to protect habitat for deer and other wildlife can be a good thing. Placing all your markers on forcing land owners to protect the king’s deer, will do nothing except anger a lot of landowners.

The “new normal” theory makes good sense. The wild canines in Maine’s woods are a hybrid of coyote, wolf, domestic dog and just about any and all kinds of dogs, wild or domestic. Their numbers are probably the highest they have ever been. Combine this with a very large bear population and it makes sense that deer must adapt or die. One has to wonder what the mortality rate in those DWAs would be minus the coyotes, and what the fawn recruitment would be like minus a couple thousand black bears? Perhaps those “severe” winters wouldn’t be quite so severe on the deer.

Habitat is not everything and it is not THE answer. Get over it. Time to move on.

Share