August 3, 2015

Maine’s Bear Hunting Season Approaching. Biologists Have Yet to Post Last Year’s Harvest Data

According to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) website, bear hunting season begins in just about a month and hunters can begin setting out their baits on August 1. I would imagine excitement is building and plans are being made. HOWEVER….

I wonder if hunters actually care about the effort that is supposed to go into compiling data and crafting a report for bear hunting, as well as deer and moose? Does anyone else bitch, moan and complain that it’s been nearly ONE YEAR and the Department has failed to make available last year’s bear hunting harvest data?

Getting any data from MDIFW is like looking for hens’ teeth, so essentially when there is nothing to review and compare except one annual harvest report, it is important to have that information. Some of us want to know the effects of the bear, deer and moose harvest. We just are not getting this information in any kind of timely manner.

We live in an age of instant information and yet, as we progress through this age, it certainly appears that MDIFW is headed in the other direction. I would like to know why. Are biologists so busy counting bats, bees and piping plovers they are not allotting time to compile harvest data? Maybe MDIFW believes they deserve a pass on this one because they worked so hard last year fighting the environmentalist freaks who want to end bear hunting?

Many things happen when there are failures like this. One thing is that sportsmen become suspicious. When sportsmen become suspicious they think terrible things and soon begin talking terrible things. Of course this does not bode well for the Department and in particular the head biologists from each game department. And let’s not forget the commissioner.

Another issue is that while the negative talk is going on, writers, like myself and serious hunters and “watch dogs” do not have the data to make comparisons in order to form opinions as to direction the managers are going in taking care of bears, deer and moose to protect our investments.

The reality of it is, the only explanation there is for the failure to do the job is that they have failed to do their job. I don’t want to hear about lack of funds. That’s BS. The department is scurrying around writing reports so they can be held hostage to the Federals at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and obtain grant monies to keep biologists counting bees and bats, as well as pay salaries and retirement benefits. If they have time to pimp for prostituted money, certainly they should be making time to compile a report and get it out to Maine citizens.

MDIFW can look so great at times, like they did during the bear referendum, and then appear as incompetent slobs when it takes a year to post a harvest report.

I think MDIFW and the leadership there, need to take a deep breath for a minute and once again try to realize where their money comes from. It makes little sense to me that the majority of their means of making a living comes from license buyers and yet their actions appear to be focused on taking care of the environmentalists, some of whom are offering extortion money in order to play on their playing field. Perhaps the paying sportsmen are being taken advantage of?

This is a recipe for failure and a looming disaster that all sportsmen should not be supportive of.


J.D. King: Wolves Don’t Change Rivers 


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

“Funny that you should ask,” replied Dr. Kay. “I just returned from Yellowstone National Park where I revisited many of my old research sites. Willows and aspen have grown taller at a few locations but there has not been any far reaching trophic cascade. The Lamar River and other streams have not recovered — in fact, the Lamar River in the Lamar Valley is worse than ever.”

Source: J.D. King: Wolves Don’t Change Rivers — The Patriot Post

New group advocates more young forest habitat

*Editor’s Note* – The road to hell is paved with good intentions! As was pointed out to me by a friend the other day, is not this proposal of forest manipulation, based upon the belief that it is “FAIR” for all wildlife, a promotion for the creation of more, national forests and state wildlife management areas? A task that cannot be accomplished by government because of their inability to do anything successfully with the exception of intrusion, regulation and loss of rights?

Perhaps this group should carefully consider what it is they are advocating for.

A new group, called the Virginia Wildlife Habitat Coalition, is being organized to make certain wildlife gets a fair shake in the management of national forests and state wildlife management areas.

Source: New group advocates more young forest habitat – TriCities Outdoors

Idaho Elk Habitat, Research, Wolf Management Benefit from RMEF Grants

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation awarded $211,400 in grants that will fund more than a dozen habitat enhancement, research and hunting heritage projects in the state of Idaho.

The grants will directly benefit 15,676 acres spread across Ada, Bear Lake, Blaine, Boise, Bonneville, Boundary, Camas, Caribou, Clearwater, Elmore, Franklin, Idaho, Owyhee, Teton and Twin Falls Counties. There are also two projects of statewide benefit.

“It is common knowledge that Idaho’s elk population is suffering in some areas of the state due, in part, to the loss of habitat and later, the reintroduction of wolves,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Part of this grant funding will help pay for the third year of a scientific study monitoring elk in central Idaho by applying elk nutrition and habitat models successfully developed in other nearby states.”

Allen also thanked Idaho volunteers for their dedicated efforts in raising funds through banquets, membership drives and other events to benefit elk and elk country in their back yard and around the country.

Since 1985, RMEF and its partners have completed 467 conservation and hunting heritage outreach projects in Idaho with a combined value of more than $59.7 million. These projects have protected or enhanced 418,580 acres of habitat and have opened or secured public access to 22,002 acres.

Here is a sampling of Idaho’s 2015 projects, listed by county:

Ada County—Provide funding to complete the final .23 miles of wildlife exclusion fence that will safely funnel big game species from upland areas to an underpass where they can safely cross beneath State Highway 21, reducing the risk and number of collisions on this section of the highway on the Boise River Wildlife Management Area.

Camas County—Treat 300 acres of weed infestations scattered across the Fairfield and Ketchum Ranger Districts on the Sawtooth National Forest by focusing on elk winter range areas burned by wildfires in 2007, 2008 and 2013 (also benefits Blaine and Elmore

Clearwater County—Provide Torstenson Family Endowment funds for the third year of research to implement a monitoring program for elk in the Clearwater Basin. Initial work will include establishing a land use habitat matrix for the Basin to be used as the foundation for management and monitoring of elk, applying the new Oregon-Washington elk nutrition and habitat models, and capturing and collaring wild elk for subsequent monitoring which will help managers decide where habitat treatments need to be made and also develop a prioritization for future work (also affects Idaho County).

Statewide—Provide $50,000 to assist Idaho’s wolf management plan. The funding goes toward hiring a wolf tracking expert to assist in locating non-documented wolf packs as well as documenting mid-winter pack composition through aerial tracking and remote camera work.

Go here to see a full listing of RMEF’s 2015 projects in Idaho.

Partners for the Idaho projects include the Caribou-Targhee, Idaho Panhandle and Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and various other tribal, civic and government organizations.

Maine’s Moose Population Cut in Half?

*Editor’s Note* – Estimates are there are between 60,000 and 70,000 moose in Maine. A Maine biologists once told the Joint Standing Committee that her estimate was 90,000 moose. We have linked to below a Maine Guide who says “confidently” that the moose population is “down about half.” I don’t know by what number this person is using in making the claim of a population reduction of half.

However, whether it is 90,000 or 60,000 to 70,000, half any of those numbers, in my opinion, is more realistic as to where the moose population in Maine ought to be. If this reduction exists in those numbers, then perhaps we will begin to see healthier moose due to a reduction also of the dreaded, deadly and tortuous winter tick.

“We are easily,and I say this confidently, we are down about half our moose population, Lambert said.

Source: Maine moose facing uptick in parasitic predator | Local News – WMTW Home

Maine bear hunters get ready for season after ban try fails

*Editor’s Note* – Maine is less than a month away from a time when bear hunters can take to the woods and begin baiting for bear. As the below article states, Maine is coming off another assault from the animal rights perverts’ attempt to ban bear hunting. During the campaign that led up to the referendum vote, it appeared that bear hunters propped up the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, standing behind their efforts to ward off the attack that they claimed would seriously diminish their abilities to control black bear populations.

While most stand firmly behind MDIFW’s work, what kind of a statement is being broadcast, when the department has yet to publish on their website, the results and data of last year’s bear harvest? If the bear hunt, as it now stands, is so vitally important to the management of bears, one has to wonder if the department is too busy pimping for federal grant (extortion) money to count bats and bees, that it neglects the bear harvest report.

Maine’s bear hunters are getting ready for their season after withstanding a pair of challenges to the way they hunt,

Source: Maine bear hunters get ready for season after ban try fails | Concord Monitor

Outdoors in Maine: Managing moose numbers best left to pros

*Editor’s Note* – Management of moose is the job of wildlife “pros.” However, not all wildlife pros know what they are doing and have agendas far and beyond “the best available science,” and sometimes even the rule of law. Therefore, we need watchdogs to keep a close eye on their every move, questioning those things that should be questioned.

The author of this piece (linked to below) tells of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) responsibility and legal obligations to manage moose for viewers and hunters. Managing any animal for the purpose of providing viewing opportunities is a non scientific event proving only to provide management complications for healthy populations. The North American Model, i.e. managing game for surplus harvest, (taking advantage of our God-given resource) has a proven scientific track record while providing a healthy resource.

As the author points out, it appears that attempting to manage the number of moose for viewing and hunting is warring against each other.

Something is wrong as far as I can see things. Hunters are restricted and the number of moose permits available to hunters rise and fall according to how MDIFW determines a need for population controls within Wildlife Management Districts (WMD). There is seldom any complaining by hunters for this, although sometimes we question the reasoning behind certain decisions. At the same time, we are seeing where people are demanding that hunters be short-changed in opportunities to harvest moose simply because of their demands for more viewing opportunities. I believe that what we have witnessed is MDIFW deciding to forego scientific moose management, according to the moose management plans, in order to placate the selfish desires of those riding around in cars hoping to see moose without any effort.

If it is proven, or if anyone is willing to connect the dots, that increasing moose populations to satisfy the social demands of viewers, is exacerbating the tick problem killing moose and spreading disease, this is something that needs to be seriously addressed.

Hunters would be cut off if management demands showed the need. The same much apply to moose watchers.

As Kantar will tell you, he and the Fish and Wildlife Department are obligated by law and tradition to safeguard the moose resource, for moose viewers as well as moose hunters. Ironically, it is possible that an excess of moose in Maine may be exacerbating the moose tick infestations that have taken a lot of young moose.

Source: Outdoors in Maine: Managing moose numbers best left to pros | Sun Journal

State to issue 23 percent fewer any-deer permits this year

*Editor’s Note* – It is no secret that one of the biggest reasons wildlife management is failing nationwide is because of what is explained below. “Social Carrying Capacity” is a non scientific, totalitarian means of creating scarcity while hiding behind the fake paradigm of meeting social tolerances. Such a fake world in which we live.

“[And] although WMD 14 does not appear to be at or near biological carry capacity, regional biologists related that current deer abundance may be approaching social carrying capacity,” Ravana wrote.

Car-deer accidents and nuisance deer eating homeowners’ plants and gardens are two examples of situations that can contribute to a lowering of “social carrying capacity.”

“As such, the department provided a limited doe harvest to [WMD 14] in an attempt to bring the population down to a more acceptable abundance level,” Ravana wrote. “This will be the first hunting season since 2007 that WMD 14 has received an [any-deer permit] allocation.”

Source: State to issue 23 percent fewer any-deer permits this year | Out There

Hunters blame wolves for elk herd changes

Big game hunting outfitters who take clients afield in northern Jackson Hole each fall say they see no silver bullet to reversing a long-term decline in the migratory portion of the Jackson Elk Herd.

Source: Hunters blame wolves for elk herd changes – Jackson Hole News&Guide: Environmental

Pennsylvania hunters still thinking about coyotes in the summer

*Editor’s Note* – Here is an example of how deeply ingrained the brainwashing about predators has consumed this country – even outdoor writers. I will not take the time to address the suggestions about what we should do to help the whitetail deer herd but only to say that the author, like all good environmentalists who know nothing about predator control and especially history, echos the claim that coyotes have this uncanny ability to produce more offspring when numbers are reduced, claiming studies prove this. In fact, studies don’t prove this. If you sort out the repeated nonsense within outcome-based studies, we can find one report that suggests it might be a possibility. But that is a minor point in the grand scheme of things.

Like with ongoing game management programs, so too must predator control be ongoing and integrated into individual game management programs. This has become a necessary tool due to the ongoing efforts of environmentalists’ protection of predators. Effective predator control works and is proven to be very effective when implemented as a continuous program.

Factual instances have shown that spending a lot of time and money improving habitat does nothing to improve the sustainability of whitetail deer when predators are the leading cause of mortality. This would be akin to building new homes in areas where there are no people, without first addressing the issue of why people do not want to move to that area.

Historically, like all good environmentalists, they blame the hunters and trappers for killing off all the wolves and coyotes in this country and yet, when hunters and trappers take to the woods to kill unwanted predators, the same environmentalists claim that hunting and trapping coyotes only causes them to have more offspring.

It cannot be had both ways.

Source: Pennsylvania hunters still thinking about coyotes in the summer – Outdoor News – June 2015