July 31, 2014

Idaho Allows Destruction of Game Herds, Then Discounts Tags

IDFGLogoIt is said that insanity is repeating the same process over and over and each time hoping for a different outcome. I think the Idaho Department of Fish and Game(IDFG) has gone insane.

IDFG has decided to offer discounted tag prices for second or surplus elk and deer tags. From the IDFG website, this is the reason they give for discounting the tags:

Q. Why the discount?

A. The Commission wanted to encourage more hunters to take advantage of additional hunting options that second tags provide. The sale of nonresident deer and elk tags provide significant revenue to fund the field operations of the Fish and Game Department. Reductions in nonresident tag sales since 2008 have resulted in less revenue to fund important management activities. Discounting these second tags will provide a mechanism for hunters who wish to increase their hunting options to also help recover necessary funding for important Fish and Game programs and operation.(emphasis added)

The real question of course should be why aren’t hunters buying tags? Another question would be; if IDFG has destroyed game herds by allowing for the protection and perpetuity of gray wolves, then why isn’t IDFG taking responsibility and reducing their department in numbers and size to stay in line with their failures to provide game for hunting as Idaho statute requires? Is there even ANY thought that their own department policies is what has driven hunters away and that is why they can’t sell tags?

With a seriously reduced game population and IDFG scrambling to find ways to fund their ineptitude, they have the audacity to claim that selling “unused” tags will have no affect on game herds(kind of reminds me of when these same fools claimed that 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs would have no affect on game herds):

Q. How will this affect game populations?

A. The level of harvest resulting from the issuance of unsold nonresident tags as second tags would be very similar to harvest occurring if the nonresident tag quotas were sold out to hunters prior to being made available as second tags.

In areas where population estimates or harvest rates fall below management objectives, seasons are adjusted accordingly. For example, hunting opportunity may be limited by shorter seasons, controlled hunts, or zone level tag quotas sold over the counter. These second tags cannot be used in controlled hunts and must fit within the nonresident portion of the existing tag cap levels.

Second tags may be used in hunts where there are currently no restrictions on the number of general deer or elk tags sold to Idaho residents in any given year or where their use would be included in previously established nonresident zone caps for elk. There are currently about 143,000 deer and 86,000 elk tags sold in Idaho each year.

Second tags will represent a very small proportion of the total tags available to hunters statewide and Fish and Game does not anticipate any negative effects to game populations as a result of a small level of overall increased harvest resulting from second tags.

So now it is official. IDFG manages their game populations according to the need to make payroll and fund their environmentally empowered programs of continued destruction of game herd against surplus harvest as required by law.

And where is the outrage?

But, But, But Nature is Always in Balance……..Right?

The Maine coastal town of Bar Harbor, adjacent to Acadia National Park, is proposing a one-time deer hunting season in order to reduce the deer population. According to the article, collisions with cars has increased two and a half times since 2000 and the incidence of Lyme disease has gone up four times what it was five years ago. But, with no hunting season, I thought, according to human haters like the Humane Society of the United States, nature is always in balance and man should butt out and let animals do what they are going to do. So why a seeming increase in deer population?

Without spending a great deal of time looking at all the possibilities, I wonder if any of the considerations have to do with an increase, and a continuing increase, in the black bear population and a very large and hungry coyotes/wolf hybrid population throughout the Pine Tree State?

In examining historic documents, such as Early Maine Wildlife by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving, we learn that when Maine once had a thriving wolf population, and no coyotes, the deer migrated to the coast of Maine and in particular inhabited the many islands near the coast. The reason being that vicious predators drove the deer in search of safe havens.

Now, with vicious predators growing at substantial rates each year, like bears and wolf/coyote hybrids, perhaps more and more deer are being squeezed from inland locations to coastal areas. However, I would be willing to wager a great sum of money that such a scenario is not even considered in any discussions that might involve the hows and whys of too many deer on Acadia.

So much for balance of nature……but don’t go look.

How The Humane Society of the United States Intends to Manage Black Bears

“The number of bears that have died on Maryland roads this year has risen to 22, according to an unofficial count maintained by the Cumberland Times-News.”<<<Read More>>>

Winning and Losing The War on Propaganda in Maine’s Anti Bear Referendum Battle

NugentThe battle over the upcoming bear hunting referendum in Maine will be won or lost depending on who can wage the biggest amount of effective lying and demonization of “the other side.” This is at its best in a recent editorial in the Bangor Daily News, where the paper attempts to make readers think the paper is not biased in this campaign against normal Maine living.

On the one hand, you have the Humane Society of the United States; perhaps one of the most corrupt and dishonest organizations in America pointing a finger at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and Save Maine’s Bear Hunt and placing shame on them for employing Ted Nugent as their campaign spokesman, as if this makes them corrupt and dishonest. The Bangor Daily News, while trying to claim they aren’t party to the lies perpetuated on both sides, takes key quotes and uses them craftily against the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and Save Maine’s Bear Hunt.

The newspaper chooses to post at least part of a quote from James Cote, campaign manager for Save Maine’s Bear Hunt: [Ted Nugent] “has never been and will never be a spokesperson for our campaign. We, as the only organized opposition, have never announced that he has anything to do with our campaign.” Perhaps Mr. Cote missed the lesson that day when most were taught NEVER to use never and always in sentences that deal with people.

If this was the quote Cote made and in the context it was intended to be, then Cote erred in making it. While the intent may have been to put some distance between Save Maine’s Bear Hunt and the always controversial Ted Nugent, Cote’s choice of words to do that perhaps were not well selected. Nugent had just given one of his guitars to the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine to use to help in raising funds to fight the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) wanting to ban bear hunting.

Without having the full text of all the words spoken by Cote, it’s difficult to know exactly how he attempted to correct HSUS’s lies about Nugent being a spokesman for Save Maine’s Bear Hunt. The Bangor Daily News, a professional at spinning words to sell copy and promoting their own, sometimes not-so-impartial, agendas, jumped all over Cote’s words in a double whammie, covering it’s own butt while at the same time being clever enough to continue to be biased against Maine’s bear hunting by manipulating words. In other words, while attempting to let readers know that the paper understands that Nugent isn’t a spokesman for Save Maine’s Bear Hunt, they took the opportunity to cease on Cote’s words to divide his camp, which in turn will lesson the power of Save Maine’s Bear Hunt in its battle with HSUS. Very clever. This is what happens when you have the media on your side.

Of course the lesson here is to choose your words carefully; always an extremely difficult task when dealing with greedy and biased news media.

On the other hand, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and Save Maine’s Bear Hunt do not have the resources the criminals at HSUS have and need to be careful of the words they speak for and/or against those who choose to support them. We cannot always choose the ideal supporters for any campaign but words that would not cut off the hand that feeds you nor provide ammunition for a biased media sure would help. This is a classic example of David and Goliath.

Trapping: Effective Management Action

Abstract

Many populations of wildlife, including large- and medium-sized predators are increasing in Europe. Trapping can be one way to reduce negative impacts of predators on human interests, such as game species and threatened species, but there is little knowledge of trap usage and motivation behind it. We used a mail survey in Sweden (n?=?3,886 respondents) to compare predator trappers with hunters who used other methods to kill predators, and with other hunters who did not kill predators, in regard to sociodemographics, beliefs, behaviors, and constraints. During 12 months prior to the survey 19 % of respondents had trapped any small- or medium-sized predator, while 15 % of respondents had trapped and 55 % had hunted (without using traps) red fox (Vulpes vulpes), European badger (Meles meles), or corvid birds. Reducing predator numbers was an important reason for hunting predators with traps. Of predator trappers, 97 % had hunted species that were potentially prey of the targeted predators (e.g., roe deer [Capreolus capreolus], hare [Lepus spp.], and grouse), 94 % believed that there were too many red foxes, badgers, or corvids on their main hunting ground, and 64 % believed it to be very important to reduce predator numbers to benefit other game species. We conclude that the use of traps is widespread among Swedish hunters, and that increasing wildlife populations, increased presence of wildlife in urban areas, and management of invasive species calls for effective management actions, of which trapping can be one. (Note: This Abstract is part of the overall study results posted online. For those interested the entire study can be purchased online as well. Learn more about this by following this link.)

Pennsylvania Considering Study of Predator Impact on Deer

*Editor’s Note* – The linked-to article below contains information about a coyote/deer study conducted in New York. It is my opinion that much of the information given about that study is bogus. It appears as though conclusions were drawn through the desires of a predator protector’s outcome based research with too many “possibles”, “maybes”, etc. The proposed Pennsylvania study might be of interest as it will deal with predator manipulation and the effects of that on deer.

From YDR.com:

“Under the proposed study, three 150-square-mile blocks would be used. One would be a control area, another where black bear populations are reduced by as much as 50 percent over two years and the same thing is done with coyotes in the third. Then, for the following two years, both predators would be reduced in each of the two study areas.

Then, the study may start generating some answers to three questions:

Does eliminating predators equate to an increase in deer numbers?

By lowering the population of one predator, will the other increase and kill more fawns than before?

Is there a way to control predators efficiently enough to increase deer numbers?”<<<Read More>>>

The Continuing Saga of “Rare” Bear Encounters

And always remember, if you encounter a bear (rare – snicker) make sure and “look big.” It’s a magic cure all.

The liars of the Humane Society of the United States and all supporters to end the Maine bear hunt say that bear encounters in places like Colorado have not increased since the state began protecting predators. Whoops! Someone forgot to tell this bear that broke into a Colorado home that happened to be the home of a competitive shooter; a teenage girl. Bang!

However, those “rare” bear encounters take us to Saskatchewan, Canada where a man, who was taking a walk IN TOWN, encountered a bear that chased him down the street. He should have looked that bear in the eye and then “looked big.”

In Vermont, phones are ringing off the hook with a constant barrage of calls from people reporting encounters and incidents with black bears. Rare I guess? Vermonters must be small people.

But, hey! Wait! Is Connecticut starting to learn from reality? In a state crowded with people, so far this year there have been over 4,000 bear encounters with humans reported. One wildlife official was quoted as saying that bear encounters with humans, “happen from time to time.” Gasp! We’ve graduated from “rare” to “from time to time.” However a bear that wandered onto Bradley Field was shot and killed because of public safety with airplanes. I’m surprised that airplanes don’t “look big” enough to scare off a bear. How big does one have to look to ward off a bear?

Now we travel out West. You know more places where the Humane Society of the United States says after ending bear hunting and perpetually protecting predators, there are really no problems with bears. But are those Westerners “looking big” enough? On a beach at Lake Tahoe, a black bear taking a stroll along the beach was eventually killed because it was not using sunblock (joke just in case you haven’t been following along). The people on the beach got together and “looked big” and so the bear wandered over to a remote area of the beach to have some privacy. Bears don’t have a right to sun bathe and so was killed for it.

Predator Management (Control) is Essential

Justin Field with Team Fate Outdoors brings you right to the scene of predator kills. Raising awareness of our wildlife’s rapid decrease in numbers. In the near future you will see a huge change in our hunting privileges! Hindering what I believe is our God given right. Predator management is essential in all aspects. If you agree with me please share this video and repost. Team Fate Outdoors leaving you wanting more!!
Sincerely Justin Field

Predator Management Is Essential With Team Fate Outdoors from Justin Field on Vimeo.

Idaho Gov. Otter Using Wolf Politics to Bolster His Political Power Struggle

Below is a press release (with a link) from Idaho Governor Otter’s office attempting to show his support for the need to control wolves in Idaho and appearing to show agreement with statements made about big money to be made in promoting and litigating wolf issues.

Steve Alder, head of Idaho for Wildlife and referenced in the press release quote, in a brief email notification stated that the governor “must be desperate.” That may be. However, I see Otter’s efforts at nothing more than political posturing to gain support for his own selfish needs. When Idahoans consider (whether they are or not I have my doubts) that the Governor supported the legislation that would force ranchers and hunters to pay for “management” of GI wolves forced down their throats, how does such action show any kind of real support for the people of Idaho and/or the “need” to control wolves? Politics is dirty, disgusting business. This nonsense by the governor is nothing more than some half-assed attempt at gaining a few more votes for personal gain.

Regardless of my personal feelings about this issue of wolves in Idaho, here is what came in a press release from Governor Otter’s office:

Governor Otter Reinforces Need for Controlling Wolves

(BOISE) – Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter released the following statement in response to the Twin Falls Times News article run on Monday, July 7, 2014 regarding wolves in Idaho.

“Nobody in Idaho or anywhere else has any doubts about where I stand on wolves. I fought to keep them out; I fought to limit their impact; and I fought successfully for Idaho’s right to manage them. I am committed to asserting whatever control we can by having Idaho people manage the federally imposed challenges we can’t avoid. Unfortunately, my Democrat opponent disagrees. He supported the wolves being brought to Idaho from Canada, and he thinks spending tax dollars to help control the damage they’re doing to Idaho’s big game and livestock is a waste of money. Once again, while I’m working for us and fighting to protect Idaho values, he’s supporting environmental absolutists and rolling over to the Obama White House.”

Below is an excerpt of the article titled Wolf War Renews as Big Money Flows, July 7, 2014.

“While wolves were busy killing a record number of sheep and cattle in Idaho last year, lawmakers and environmentalists were busy amassing money to renew their longstanding battles over the predator.

On July 1, the Idaho Wolf Depredation Control Board was established to kill wolves that attack livestock and eat elk through $400,000 in tax money, livestock levies and sportsmen’s fees.

In response, Defenders of Wildlife, a national organization, began a high-dollar media campaign in Idaho calling for Gov. C.L. Butch Otter to end his “War on Wolves.” The conservationists purchased online ads in Boise and Hailey-based newspapers and radio spots across the state. Clicking on some of them leads to an online petition, others have a “donate now” button.

That proves what Steve Alder, executive director of Idaho for Wildlife, said he has long suspected — conservationists are using Idaho’s wolf population to line their pockets. As one of the state’s leading anti-wolf contingents, Alder’s group has frequently locked horns with environmentalists, including a winter wolf derby and a spat over a dead colt in Hailey.”

To view the entire article, visit http://magicvalley.com/news/local/wolf-war-renews-as-big-money-flows/article_8384f9dc-0595-11e4-a828-001a4bcf887a.html.

Hunting Increases Numbers of Wildlife

This graphic is not vetted. I spent some time but not a lot attempting to verify the claimed statistic. I could not.

SouthAfrica