January 23, 2020

Will Higher Prices for Coyote Fur Do For Deer What Wildlife Managers Won’t Do?

Maine and some other states have too many coyotes. As a result, in some of those states, like Maine, too many coyotes is contributing to a drastic reduction in whitetail deer populations. Too many predators combined with a couple of bad winters and wildlife management programs that protect large predators rather than control them, have all contributed to the problem.

I reported just the other day that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) had somehow dug up $50,000 to pay expenses to hire trained hunters and trappers to go to specified deer wintering areas and kill coyotes. However, so far, spending $9,500 has only seen the death of 52 coyotes, or about $180 apiece.

Last night I sent out an email to a small contingency of Maine hunter/trapper experts. From one of those people I got back the following response which was not directly related to the question I asked.

Tom,

If coyote prices stay where there at the trappers will have them harvested to there lowest numbers since coming to Maine. One trapper in Princeton got $92 a piece for two of his yotes and overall had over a $50 average. I predict we will see a big difference in two years on our deer herd.

I have to admit this caught me off guard. I am not a trapper but I do fully support the activity as I see trapping and hunting as both integral parts of wildlife management. I had no idea the price of coyote fur had risen so much. Usually the comments are that it was difficult to get people out to hunt and trap coyotes because the fur prices were worth nothing, rendering the effort a waste of time.

To help me out, another reader sent me links to information about fur prices. The Maine Trappers Association (MTA) has early season fur prices from different regions posted. And at the website, Trapping Today, there exist extensive reports on fur prices to include one report that lists auction prices for coyotes running between $63 and $69 dollars.

I had suggested in that earlier report that perhaps Maine could better spend what little money they had and just pay out the $50,000 in bounty fees of $100 per coyote on a first come, first served basis. Imagine if you will if coyote prices remained at or above $50 a pelt in conjunction with a $50 bounty? At those prices, I would have to agree with the one gentleman who predicted that there would be a big difference in Maine’s deer herd after a couple years.

If coyote fur prices were to remain at very high levels, this event all by itself would accomplish what no fish and game department is willing to do or has the ability to do.

Bring on high fur prices!

Tom Remington

Share

Idaho Fish and Game’s Blind Ignorance

This morning I was reading the “Critter News”, an electronic news report that get sent to a small contingency of readers. The editor provided a link to a story in the Magic Valley news online (subscription). The title of the article is, “Decline in Hunting-license Sales Sinks Conservation Money”.

As I began to read, it was about 50 words into the story that this quote from Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s (IDFG) regional conservation officer Gary Hompland, appeared.

“Fishing licenses have stayed relatively steady as far as the numbers of licenses sold,” regional conservation officer Gary Hompland said. “Most of that, from what we can tell, is because we’ve had some really good salmon and steelhead runs the last few years.”

From this point on Hompland laments about the drop in hunting license sales. While it appears from Hompland’s perspective, fishing license sales is very cut and dry; lots of fish equals lots of fishing licenses sold. Evidently this same theory doesn’t hold true for hunting.

According to Hompland, the loss of hunting license sales is having a devastating effect on the budget at IDFG and evidently the reasons are varied and have nothing to do with a lack of game to hunt. Here’s the list of excuses:

1.) According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey information, hunting license sales have declined since 1975. So, it’s a trend but no reasons given as to what drives that “trend”.

2.) IDFG attempted to lesson the blow by stating three other states, Rhode Island, California and Iowa, as having a greater decline in sales than Idaho.

3.) A “dour economy” as it is called by Hompland.

4.) And, “changing demographics of hunters”.

5.) Lack of new hunter recruitment “like we used to”.

6.) More single-parent families result in fewer hunters.

All of these items seem to be contributing factors to the decline of hunting and evidently none of them effect fishing. But what’s even more transparently ignorant is to think that when it comes to fishing, it’s all about how many fish there are to catch but when it comes to hunting, it’s about everything else except how much game there is to shoot.

Idaho is not alone. Several states face budget problems and some of that is due to a decline in license sales. The state of Maine is one such state. As a matter of fact they formed a dreaded “task force” to study why nobody from out of state wants to go to Maine to hunt anymore. The task force acknowledged the fact that Maine’s deer population has disappeared, especially in those regions where the out-of-state hunters went for trophy game. Instead of working to deal with that problem, the opted, as I guess we are seeing here in Idaho, to not necessarily deny there’s a game problem but find every excuse other than that for the decline in hunting licenses sold.

Tom Remington

Share

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine Lays Out Demands to USFWS on Canada Lynx

Perhaps the tone of the comments made by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) is just as important as the information contained in them. It is refreshing to read from any hunting, fishing, trapping and outdoor organization with an attitude that exudes the confidence needed to place the demands of the outdoor sportsmen above those of the environmentalists. SAM lays out five issues that they see as what needs to be done in order to move forward as it pertains to the application process for an Incidental Take Permit for trapping in Maine.

The comment period has closed in which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), by law, accepted comments from all interested parties concerning the State of Maine’s application for an Incidental Take Permit(ITP) for trapping. The Canada lynx is listed under federal law as a “threatened” species and certain critical habitat has been designated as needing further protections in order to assist in the growth of the lynx population. As a result of this process Maine should apply for and obtain this ITP to protect the state and trappers should some lynx be accidentally caught in traps intended for other species.

Here’s a look at SAM’s five demands and my comments on them.

1.) SAM asks that the ITP be approved as quickly as possible without delay and without any further restrictions added to the already harsh rules that govern trapping (by a court Consent Decree). All the data available indicate that the rules and programs in place are more than adequate to not only protect the lynx but to assist in a continuation of growing the population.

2.) The USFWS is requiring MDIFW to set aside certain public lands to be used as “lynx conservation areas”. SAM demands that if this is done the land remain open to, “all legal trapping, hunting, snowmobiling, and other traditional activities”. While I agree that all public land should remain open for all public use, I have serious concerns about portions of this “conservation plan” that calls for large areas of forests on these public lands to be “clear cut” in order to grow desirable lynx habitat. We would hope that no public lands be clear cut only for the purpose of creating habitat for one species with disregard for all others and the overall use of the land by the people.

3.) SAM demands that the USFWS set recovery goals. In other words, provide the people with the scientific criteria in terms of population numbers, etc. that must be reached and for how long, before delisting can occur.

For those who don’t know, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) lists, although extremely non specific, any condition that must be in existence BEFORE a species can be listed on the ESA. Please review the ESA for those criteria. The ESA also clearly states that the same criteria must NOT exist in order to remove a species for federal protection.

Because the criteria in the ESA is so non specific and much flexibility and deference is given to the Secretary of Interior, what SAM is demanding is reasonable and well within the scope and historic activities of the USFWS.

However, that same history shows us that setting population goals, genetic connectivity, etc. acts more as a catalyst for inflaming arguments over species management theories than providing reachable goals for delisting. In some areas, such as those battling over gray wolves, those goals keep changing making it impossible to ever delist a species.

4.) SAM demands that the USFWS, “modify its distinct population segment”. This is where the waters get really muddy; where science takes a back seat and politics take over and decisions that should be based on science get decided in the Courts.

Historic evidence shows us that animal rights groups and environmentalists have learned to use the very non specific Endangered Species Act to create great wealth. One aspect of abuse of the ESA comes over the debate about Distinct Population Segments (DPS). I would attempt to explain to readers what a DPS is supposed to be but the court rulings nationwide are so varied I’m not sure anyone knows any longer what the laws are regulating the use of DPSs.

The intent of a DPS was to designate a certain species of animal within a region that subsequently became federally listed through the ESA as a “threatened” or an “endangered” species. Of course in designating such a DPS, boundaries have to be used somewhere and decided upon somehow. However, the designation and use of such boundaries has led to some ridiculous court rulings making little sense, based on arbitrary decisions and mostly from activist-type judges.

In the Great Lakes region a few years ago, when the USFWS attempted to remove grey wolves from the ESA, a lawsuit ensued and Judge Paul Friedman, in his ruling, stated that the USFWS did not have the authority to create a Distinct Population Segment in order to delist a species. No explanation has ever been given as to why, then, it is acceptable to create a DPS to list a species but not to delist.

Judge Friedman remanded the case back the USFWS until such time as they could provide proof to the courts that they had the authority to create DPSs. Last year, the USFWS tried once again to delist grey wolves in the Western Great Lakes. The Final Rule in the Federal Register, goes into quite a bit of depth in explaining existing laws and past court rulings in an attempt to bolster their argument that they have all the necessary authority the judge deemed they didn’t.

Currently grey wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment have been removed from federal protection under the ESA. Environmental groups are threatening lawsuits and until such time as that happens we may not know whether the USFWS has sufficiently satisfied the Court.

While I concur with the SAM on this to some degree, that a better job needs to be done, especially when the initial creation of a DPS is considered, making the demand to “modify its distinct population segment” for Maine’s population of lynx is a very complicated act. Which leads us into SAM’s fifth demand.

5.) SAM insists that, “individual states within each of the newly-created DPS’s need to be separable when lynx populations reach recovery goals in one or more states, but not in the others.”

Again, this is a very complex issue because of the involvement of the courts. When a species is brought under federal protection, it is the U.S. Government, i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that overseas and calls all the shots as they pertain to species protection and recovery. That management authority is taken away from the states and if and when the day comes that a species is declared recovered, wildlife management authority returns to the states. And yet, when it comes time to delist a species, even if one state has worked harder than another to recover a species, delisting cannot occur along state boundaries because of court rulings.

Example: The USFWS has designated large portions of Maine and smaller areas in New Hampshire, Vermont and New York as areas where the Canada lynx has known populations. Essentially, the USFWS includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York as a Distinct Population Segment for Canada lynx.

SAM is asking the USFWS to be prepared to delist Maine’s population of lynx when it has recovered even if New Hampshire, Vermont and New York have not recovered their populations.

Court rulings have further confused this issue. As I stated earlier, Judge Friedman claims the USFWS does not have that authority under the ESA. In Maine’s case, according to Friedman’s ruling, the USFWS could not create a DPS along the boundary lines of the states for the purpose of declaring the Canada lynx a recovered species.

Out in the Northern Rockies, when the USFWS attempted to delist grey wolves, Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the USFWS could not exclude Wyoming from the delisting process because the Feds didn’t have authority through the ESA to do that. In other words, the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment included all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and small portions of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Cutting Wyoming out of the process was not something Judge Molloy was willing to do. For him, it was all in or all out while the issue of scientific recovery, within the borders of a state, of a species was never considered.

Even though it literally took an act of Congress to delist wolves in all of the NRM DPS except Wyoming, the laws are still very unclear about what the feds can do.

SAM says that the feds need to do a better job with their DPS designation processes and I would certainly concur with that statement. However, the first thing needed is a clear and definite set of rules and guidelines that should be utilized before any DPS is created and the specific guidelines for delisting, even if it included breaking off segments within a DPS. Science should be the driving force not politics or private agendas.

There is one thing that I can guarantee. Maine’s attempt at acquiring an Incidental Take Permit will not be simple. Depending upon the content of that ITP, will depend on the number of lawsuits that will be filed in an attempt to stop all trapping to protect the lynx. It is almost as certain that we will never see the Canada lynx removed from the ESA because the ESA, politics and the entire process that got the species listed is not designed to remove a species from federal protection. This is partially what is wrong with the ESA that needs fixing.

And, good luck with that.

Tom Remington

Share

Michigan Report Shows Coyotes Biggest Killing of Deer

Preliminary reports from a three-year study in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan show that of all the large predators, wolves, coyotes, bobcat and bears, the coyote does the most damage to the deer herd.

According to the report, the coyotes feasted on both adult males and females but did its most damage killing fawns. After the coyote, the bobcat scored in second place, followed by the bear and wolf.

The full report is due to be released in the near future.

Drawing specific conclusions about this bit of information is fruitless, however, if nothing else it once again drives home the point, so often denied by wildlife managers, that coyotes should be taken as a serious concern for the killing of large prey such as whitetail deer. Preliminary data suggest that coyotes killed more fawn deer than adults but the point to be made here is that they do kill adult deer and on a regular basis. This is an event often denied by wildlife managers and environmentalists.

I will be anxious to get my hands on a copy of this report.

Tom Remington

Share

Maine Fish and Wildlife Funding Woes

Every governmental agency has to balance revenue with expenditures……well, “any responsible government agency” – and that phrase in quotations is truly an oxymoron. The State of Maine suffers many of the same problems as other states in outspending the revenue coming in. So what does a fish and game department do?

In this instance it must be recognized that just about every state in this country is struggling with budget issues. Much of the reason is simply a lack of tax generated revenue that isn’t meeting the desires to spend money.

However, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t get it’s funding from general taxation. While some of its funds come from taxes on sporting goods-related products and services, the bulk comes from the collection of licensing and registration fees from users. So why should there be a shortage of revenue or overspending?

One of the reasons I have written about extensively over the years – too many non game programs being run by the MDIFW using sportsman’s money to pay for them. So, this is clearly one avenue in which the State and MDIFW can work to correct. Perhaps it is time to pay for all non game programs with general taxation and/or user fees for those that generally play for free. This effort would require budget rewrites and cuts or tax increases for other departments that would pay for the programs and services.

As they would say in Maine, I’m a “wicked” fiscal conservative. I don’t believe in throwing money at a problem and hope it fixes it. In trying economic times, as we are facing today, Maine sportsmen, citizens and all government agencies have to “suck it up”, as the saying goes. This requires making unpopular decisions by making short term decisions that will play well into long term planning.

George Smith, former executive direction for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), writes on his blog today that MDIFW is short $900,000 with 5 months remaining in this current budget period. He also writes that MDIFW has $1.2 million in its “reserve” account and some are hollering to use that money to meet the demands of MDIFW.

Smith also writes in his Downeast Magazine blog that: “Two weeks ago the agency’s John Pratte told the committee the deer plan needed an additional $650,000 per year to be fully implemented. Some legislators appear ready to say to DIF&W Commissioner Chandler Woodcock: ok, go for it. Take that $650,000 out of your surplus and show us what you can do.” Is using up that surplus money to implement the Deer Plan what Maine should do? Or, use it for other needs within the department?

Whoa, is the cry in demanding some kind of fiscal responsibility, including transparency, from any government agency but there is one very clear thing that is too easily forgotten these days; keeping the license buyers and fee payers happy. After all, they are the biggest source of revenue and the ones with the real investment here.

While we can all harp and debate about how efficiently and effectively MDIFW spends the money it has, that department needs desperately to convince its investors that they are wise stewards of our money. Without that, all the rest is simply a practice in futility.

I ask, when was the last time any MDIFW administration went out of their way to convince the stakeholders, i.e. the revenue generators, that their money is being wisely invested?

Getting the MDIFW house in order is only one aspect of the formula for responsible management. If MDIFW can convince fee payers their existence means something and the majority of the focus is put back on providing opportunities, the department would be on the way to curing the revenue stream.

Don’t get me wrong. It isn’t that easy but it certainly would go a long way.

To increase revenue, there has to be satisfied users of the resources. If the hunting and fishing resources stink, it only stands to reason license sales will drop, and of course that means a reduction in revenue. The above suggestion of making the sportsmen happy will go a long way toward the start of rebuilding more license buyers.

Let’s face it. The only way you can sell hunting licenses is to have ample opportunities to hunt game or fish for fish, etc. The lousy deer herd has certainly cut into license sales and will continue to do so until things change.

But there are things MDIFW can do for the short term that would bolster license sales. Staring the state squarely in the face are two huge opportunities for both hunters and the MDIFW. Maine has probably the largest black bear population of any state in the Union. It was also recently announced by Lee Kantar, MDIFW head deer and moose biologist, that the moose population has grown to 75,000 or more. MDIFW needs to jump all over these two situations and accomplish two things. 1.) Provide more hunting opportunities for hunters, both in state and out of state, and 2.) Increased opportunities directly relates to increase revenue. This would help pick up the slack of a current $900,000 shortfall.

Maine must not just jump at the opportunity to grab all or some of the $1.2 million surplus without being responsible. It’s simple really: 1.) MDIFW and sportsmen need to back off on the demands for money at a time when all departments need to tighten their belts. 2.) MDIFW needs to convince license and fee buyers it is THEIR interest that is being guarded and protected and prove to them that they really have no place else to cut spending. 3.) Work toward finding how structurally to provide funding for non game programs through other departments and/or user fees for the free loaders. 4.) Take advantage of the very large bear and moose populations and provide opportunities NOW. That will give a short term increase to revenue.

If these efforts are undertaken, the short term will set the stage of long term success. I will unequivocally state that MDIFW cannot be successful and maintain a quality and responsible budget if their only attempt comes in raising fees or confiscating tax money from some place else. A quality product will yield more revenue. With continued fiscal discipline and responsibility, the result will be a well functioning fish and game department that more closely resembles the days when the sportsmen actually felt they had ownership and those “in charge” listened to them.

In closing, I might caution the efforts of some in Augusta. While the scramble is on to find money, it is prudent that in consideration of all sources of revenue, the big picture is kept in clear perspective.

Smith writes to readers that Senate President Kevin Raye has launched an effort to find other means of revenue:

In the meantime, a separate effort has been launched by Senate President Kevin Raye to find new revenue sources for DIF&W. Participating in discussions with Raye are the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Maine Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and the Maine Tourism Association.

Not all of these agencies have the same goals as the sportsmen who pay the bills at MDIFW. It is their investment and any perceived desperation of lacking funds that result in seeking revenue elsewhere, should never compromise the strong Maine heritage of hunting, fishing and trapping for the mere sake of throwing more money at a problem.

Tom Remington

Share

Montana Wolf Hunt Season Closes – Fails to Meet Kill Quota

In my selfish gloating I am proud to state: “I told you so!“. Over three years ago I predicted that with the wolf hunt plans being discussed for Montana and Idaho, the fish and game departments would fail miserably in any quest to control wolf populations.

We find out today that as Montana closes this year’s wolf hunting season, they failed to reach the quota of killing 220 wolves. What they recorded was 162 wolves tagged, even after extending the season. This equates to a success rate of less than 1% according to KFBB.com.

And of course the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) have all the excuses why the quota wasn’t met.

Officials say the hunt has been slow for a variety of reasons. Wolves naturally try to avoid humans and they are so widespread across the region. With the lack of snow, they can be harder to track.

While these excuses hold some truth, hunters are restricted in tools necessary to kill wolves, and they’ll never accomplish the task of “control” this way. Readers should be reminded that last spring, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) put helicopters in the sky to kill wolves in the Lolo Region. Lack of snow made spotting wolves difficult and officials only killed 5 wolves.

C. Gordon Hewitt in, “The Conservation of the Wild Life of Canada“, over one hundred years ago told us what was the most effectual way to kill coyotes and wolves.

The most successful method of destroying coyotes, wolves and other predatory animals is by the organization of systematic hunting by paid hunters, receiving no bounties and working under government control. This policy is giving excellent results in the United States, as will be shown presently.

The problem is by no means a local one, nor even a provincial one; it is both interprovincial and international in character, and it is only by organization along these lines that ultimate success will be obtained. What we need is co-operation among all concerned: individuals, live-stock organizations, and governments; all of them should contribute to the funds that are needed to carry out the work after a broad policy has been formulated.

Will Graves, author of “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, gave his readers a laundry list of all the methods, tactics and tools the Russian Government used in an attempt to control wolf populations.

1. Drive Hunting with Flags – Large squares of cloth tied a couple feet apart and strung by rope was used to force wolves to specified areas where hunters waited in ambush.
2. Drive Hunting Without Flags
3. Hunting Over Bait
4. Call Hunting – Use of man made calls that imitate sounds that will lure wolves.
5. Scouting for and Finding Dens – This is a method used by natives in Alaska and other parts of the world. Wolves often return to the same denning areas each year. Hunters would locate these dens, remove the cubs and kill them.
6. Hunting With Russian Wolfhounds
7. Hunting on Skis
8. Hunting From Horseback
9. Trapping
10. Using Poison
11. Hunting with Eagles and Falcons
12. Hunting From Light Aircraft
13. Hunting From Helicopters
14. Hunting From Snowmobiles and Vehicles

While employment of all these methods yielded good results, Graves points out to readers that without a sustained wolf control effort, problems would persist.

Dealing with wolves worldwide over the years has always been a struggle. In my series “To Catch a Wolf“, there are numerous accounts of the ways in which people crafted tools and tactics to kill wolves.

So, what is it that wildlife officials expect? They themselves, with the assistance of helicopters can’t kill enough wolves to make it worth the effort. We have read often of efforts by game biologists trying to trap and collar/tag wolves and can’t get the job done. Yet even with that knowledge and their choice not to seek historical facts on the difficulties in controlling wolves, they somehow think a hunter, willing to contribute a few dollars, is going to take his gun and be successful in killing him a wolf? I remind readers of the less than 1% success rate.

As long as states insist that wolves and coyotes will be “big game” animals, hunted for sport by one man and one gun, citizens can expect no changes in the reduction of wolf/human encounters or any increases of game animals in areas where wolves have destroyed them.

One has to question the real goals behind wolf hunting. It certainly doesn’t appear to be population reduction to protect private property and salvage other game animals, such as deer, elk and moose.

Perhaps officials are waiting for Nature to balance itself out! Yeah, that must be what it is. Now, how does that work?

Tom Remington

Share

Managing Wildlife In “An Environmentally Responsible Way”

For every one of the thousands of “environmentally responsible” bits of propaganda that get printed to thousands of media sources nationwide, at least 10 rebuttals with factual information need to be made in hopes of stemming the tide of inaccurate and regurgitated bad information about wildlife management, and moving those discussions forward with scientifically substantiated facts. It is a relentless battle, but alas, the war rages on.

A rightfully placed “opinion piece” in the Bangor Daily News, from Heather Bolint“Heather Bolint of Damariscotta is a 2009 graduate of Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Fl., where she earned a BA in environmental studies” – is a rerun of the same old unproven theories that have for years been bandied around by environmentalists and animal activists as fact. While attempting to cherry pick a few theories dressed up like “studies” to substantiate her own agitprop, Ms. Bolint tells readers there exists no other studies but hers and all other information is inaccurate. Or, perhaps she just didn’t go look.

One of the greatest threats today to our wildlife management programs in this country comes from environmentalist, much like the author of this piece. Environmentalists tend to perpetuate theories and ideologies, such as “balance of nature”, “self-regulation”, bolstered by the absurd delusion that man is not part of the equation. This perspective is one from an environmentalist and certainly not one from real wildlife science and as such, the agenda-driven environmentalists use phraseology for wildlife management as, “An Environmentally Responsible Way”.

Actual wildlife biology took a back seat in recent years to demands from social activists, i.e. animal rights; placing animals at or above a plane with humans; a want to “view” wildlife; skewed moral and ethics issues, etc. This is not actual responsibility to care for the wild animals but is, in fact, a labeled “environmentally responsible way”. The author references her misconception by stating, “Maine’s coyote control is needless and unregulated and merely serves the purpose of providing financial stability to the IF&W rather than an environmentally responsible way to manage wildlife.”

Isn’t it a bit on an oxymoron to link together “environment” and “responsible”?

It is first important to point out to readers that Maine essentially does NOT have a coyote control program. Through extensive research recently, I learned that in 2004 the Maine Legislature repealed any remains of the Coyote Control Program. The only coyote “control” that exists amounts to ample hunting opportunities, limited trapping opportunities and a sparse, at best, animal damage control program of targeting winter deer yards to kill coyotes that are extirpating our deer herd.

The author chooses to utilize information written on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) website and present it as fact, when in fact most of the information she references pertains to Maine’s Coyote Control Program which has been repealed. She grabs this quote:

By continuing the coyote control program, the public may perceive the Department [of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife] implicitly believes the control program has a strong biological basis, when in fact, the biological benefits of coyote control are unknown.”

And this:

“It is not known whether the current snaring program, or other forms of coyote control, has any effect on increasing local or regional deer numbers.”

As well as this one:

“The possibility exists that the removal of territorial coyotes may allow nonterritorial coyotes into an area, and exacerbate the deer predation problem.”

It is no secret that the MDIFW has an aversion for predator control. After all, predator control is one of those nasty things that are learned in indoctrination camps these days. Our biologists are taught unproven theories; that predators like coyotes and wolves are “healthy for our ecosystems” and that nature “self regulates”. This is all junk science and intellectual rubbish.

Environmentalists created the use of “ecosystem” to term our forests and fields; “eco”, of course relating to the environment and “system” as it might refer to orderliness, or organization of working parts that yield a desired result. The only thing that might resemble a “system” in wildlife management comes from man’s effort to work to keep it at some sort of socially acceptable “balance”, i.e. not allowing one species to dominate and kill off another, etc. This is why we developed wildlife management and devised the Northern America Model for wildlife Conservation. It has been all part of the environmentalists’ plan to use social tolerance in wildlife management programs while giving biological science a back seat.

To those people who perpetuate the myth of nature balancing itself, I merely demand that they prove it. They can’t.

But back to the opinion piece, using worn out, and unproven theories about coyotes and predators as a whole from the MDIFW website of outdated information in order to bolster claims that it is “environmentally irresponsible” to control coyotes doesn’t make the grade.

For decades environmentalists and animal rights organization, who know nothing of predator/prey relationships or wildlife management in general, and pay their “scientists” well to give them the theories they wish to perpetuate, have regurgitated the theories about alpha males and females and reactive population growth from implementation of predator control. These have NEVER been proven and contrary to what Heather Bolint says, there does exist studies and data to indicate otherwise.

Dr. L. David Mech, around 1970 published in a book he wrote about how important it was to preserve the “alpha male” in a pack and the disruption it would cause by removing that alpha male. In other words, he was the author, the founder, the creator of the alpha male myth. But on Dr. Mech’s own website, he tells people that he has since that time learned that this simply is not true. He writes:

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.”

However, the discovery of this information is not allowed to stand in the way of the agendas of environmentalist whose goals include the ending of hunting, fishing and trapping. The argument has always been that in random killing of coyotes, if the alpha male and/or alpha female are killed, the pack will be sent into disarray resulting in increased predation of livestock and family pets, etc. We know this now to be false.

What else are we finding is false?

For the MDIFW biologists to include on their website a statement about how removing “territorial” coyotes in one area might allow for “nonterritorial” coyotes to move in, is actually a reflection of their own lack of more modern understanding of predator and prey relationships and the behaviors of predators such as coyotes. Coyotes essentially have two functions. Kill and eat and reproduce. If targeted coyotes in one territory are removed and hungry dispersing coyotes are looking for a place to go, they might go there or they might not. They are opportunistic animals. If they do fill that void as might be believed, an ongoing coyote control program would solve that problem too. This is not complicated.

When anyone carries with them the unproven theory that if you kill a certain number of coyotes, they will produce more to replace those, will, more than likely, also possess the misinformation that targeting coyotes only allows more to take their place. To state this information as fact, as I have said earlier, is intellectual rubbish and dishonesty.

The entire opinion piece is a fabrication of unproven theories, exceptionally poor information and in some cases, actual myths. Readers should beware that this creation of anti-hunting decretum belongs in the opinion section.

The author reveals her anti-hunting agenda when she says:

Coyote control in Maine is facilitated through shooting, trapping, baiting and running down coyotes with dogs. These can be inhumane methods and are not regulated…..

Humaneness belongs to the eyes of the beholder. While Bolint tries to convince readers that shooting, trapping, baiting and hunting coyotes with dogs, is inhumane treatment, she falls flat on her face failing to discuss the realities of uncontrolled and unmanaged wildlife as a comparison. Of course, anyone who has an aversion or detestation to hunting and trapping of wild animals, would think it inhumane. The “natural” means of death to these animals can be about as inhumane, by human standards, as it can get. What is humane about protecting predators like coyotes to the point they become disease ridden? Coyotes can be carriers of up to thirty known diseases, parasites, etc. Common diseases are mange, parvovirus, distemper and rabies. What is humane about watching a coyote wither away and die from these diseases? Early in grade-school science we learned that too many animals in too small a space, breeds and spreads disease.

We control rats and other disease-spreading, undesirable creatures but somehow, while one may turn a blind eye to mice and rats being killed in a trap, quickly dispatching a coyote through hunting and trapping is somehow considered inhumane? I question if the author has any knowledge at all about hunting and trapping.

What is humane about having so many coyotes in some locations that they are extirpating deer herds? What’s humane about the realization of how hungry coyotes, being forced to kill more deer to survive, go about ripping a fetus from a female deer they are carrying in the middle of a deer wintering yard? What is humane about having a coyote eat a deer alive?

What is humane about so many coyotes eating the same prey that is food for other wildlife causing starvation and serious reduction of those species. An example might well by the Canada lynx. Its main prey for sustenance is the hare. If too many coyotes eat up all the hare, what chance does the lynx have? Is that humane? Is this even rational thinking?

The author of this piece is ignorant of the nonexistent coyote control program. She’s uneducated in the facts of coyote behavior as well as predator/prey relationships and provides readers with nothing more than blather, dressed up with a new skirt and bright lipstick and presented as factual information.

Ms. Bolint is an educated environmentalist. She has no idea that the MDIFW and many of the scientists there are her allies. Many there perpetuate the same environmental junk science and share the same theories and myths.

If people actually would like to see well-controlled and healthy populations of many and diverse species, the first thing that is needed is to get rid of environmentalism. It is not a science. It’s a religion given too much power and recognition and it is destroying our forest and fields by doing everything they can to get man out of the woods resulting in widespread predator pits absent of any kind of diverse and healthy wildlife populations.

Tom Remington

Share

Are There Now Rabid Wolves in Idaho?

*Scroll Down for Updates*

Nearly six years ago, we learned that two-thirds of all wild wolf carcasses examined in Idaho were infected with tapeworms of the echinococcus granulosus variety that, if contracted by humans can cause hydatid cysts on major body organs, such as lungs, liver, brain, etc. There also exists now human cases of hydatid disease in Idaho; extremely difficult to diagnose, more difficult to treat, surgery being the only option, and potentially deadly.

Now, it appears the possibility exists that wolves are being found in Idaho that have rabies.

During the drafting of the Environmental Impact Statement of 1994, before the reintroduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area, some scientists shared their concerns over the impact of disease that wolves are known to carry; many of which are harmful to humans and livestock, and in some cases, potentially deadly. Echinococcus granulosis and rabies, only two of the approximate 30 diseases these canines carry. Those concerns were essentially ignored.

Now, citizens of Idaho, appear to have another canine disease to concern themselves with. Indications are that some wolves in portions of Idaho may have rabies.

I was included in an email exchange over the weekend of one person’s account of unusual wolf behavior and the role being played out by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Below is a copy of the email. I have decided to omit certain personal information about the author of the email, not because they requested it but because I believe it is a responsible thing to do considering the sick and mentally twisted freaks who dot our landscape. Enough said.

Will Graves, author of “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages” and the person to whom the email below was first sent to, sought permission from “Jennifer” to share the letter and information below. Graves made the following comment:

“In my opinion it is very strange under the circumstances you explained in this email that the Idaho FWP has not released the lab results on these two wolves. The public must be informed on what these two wolves died from. In my opinion it is grossly irresponsible not to release these pertinent lab reports to the general public.

It takes from one to three days to determine if an animal with rabid like symptoms was infected with rabies or not. There could possibly be some extenuating circumstances. Of course, if the animal were shot in the head to kill it, then rabies could probably not be confirmed.”

Graves was able to later confirm that the wolf had not been shot in the head.

“The wolf died on its own, no one shot it in the head ( it took 3 days for it to die ). The man told me they called Idaho F& G approximately 2 hours after the wolf died. He would not tell me the address of the house where it happened.He was really afraid.”

Here is the email letter.

~~~~~

We were awoken at 3:35 am on Saturday the 11th Feb. 2012, with wolves harassing our Akbash / Pyrenees cross guard dogs. We could hear one of the wolves growing from our bedroom window, it was on the other side of the fence along the road that goes by our home and barn. The two guard dogs were up against the front door of the house completely frightened and trying to hide. Kevin my husband went out and was growled at in the dark by one of the wolves from behind him on the road. He was trying to see them with a million watt hand held light. But they were ducked down in a snow filled ditch with water flowing from *** Creek across the road. They ran off.

In the morning at first light I went out to see were the tracks went and to try to figure out how many wolves there were as its very difficult to see tracks in the dark. The tracks were clear to see and the size of my hand 6″ X 3″ stride length of about 60″. They exited on the main road east towards Hailey.

A truck pulled into a turnout above our home. I was tracking in on the movement of the two wolves by our field and fence line. The man had his window down and asked if I had seen any wolves, I told him we had them at our place last night harassing the two guard dogs that were out in the fenced yard. We talked for about 30 minutes about wolves in the area. After that he mentioned to me that his friend that lives in Starweather subdivision had a really skinny wolf show up next to his drive way convoluting and drooling. He said his friend was hoping it would go away as he did not want the controversy from certain wolf defenders and people in town. He said It took three days for the wolf to die . The last night he thought it would perish because it was extremely cold, but when he went out in the morning it was still in convolutions but lying down and foaming on the muzzle and drooling from its mouth. A short time later he said it died. They decided to call Fish and Game. Local Lee Garwood of Fish and Game with another officer arrived and took the dead wolf carcus away. The man told me that they were told NOT to tell anyone and that they had picked up another wolf from the Fairfield pack in Fairfield that had the same symptoms months ago. The man told me they had been frightened to tell anyone and the following week his friend called Lee Garwood the Fish and Game Officer and asked him what the wolf died of. Lee Garwood told him they did not know and it would take weeks before they knew anything on why it died. The two men thought it was strange. When the man told me all of this he was really scared and did not want me to tell anyone about it. He drove away.

I went back to our house and called Will Graves immediately because I thought it could be rabies. Two years ago I sent Will graves and Steve Alder, Wildlife For Idaho the news paper articles on the fly fisher man that had a rabid bat stuck on his fishing vest on the Wood River in Green horn Gulch area.. Three other people had to have a rabies shot series because of rabid bats in that area too. There is a bad bat colony somewhere in that vicinity. Then I called Lee Garwood next and he told me that he did not want me scaring people right now and he had two wolf hunters out working on it, killing the wolves in Green horn and not to be worried or alarmed. I told Lee we had an very aggressive wolf growling by our fence early that morning. We thought it was unusual behavior. Then I called Steve Alder to report it and get his expert help as I was really concerned that it could be rabies not distemper or parvo. Distemper did not fit the convolutions and the length of time it took to die. Will Graves talked it over with Val Giest in Canada and both thought it sounded like stage three rabies. The last wolf that growled and charged me and my dog in my yard had an imbedded leather tracking collar with a dead battery. The collar was rotting in its neck and it was desperately trying to eat and it was starving. So we thought something must be really wrong with the growling wolf at the fence. Lee Garwood told me he would come by in person at 12:00 the next day to talk to us in person. He did come on Saturday and Lee informed my husband Kevin that it was a 60 pound very skinny looking and light in weight female wolf. He personally seemed very surprised that Fish and Game had not released the discovery on what killed the female wolf or the other one in Fairfield yet. He told Kevin my husband to not scare people and keep it quite as they did not need mass hysteria going around town. He said maybe an Elk kicked it in the head or it had a bone splinter in its guts.

Steve we are sending this to you in hopes that maybe you can get the Governor to get the report released from Fish and Game ASAP on what killed the wolf in Starweather subdivision Hailey, ID and what killed the wolf in Fairfield, ID months ago that they took away to be examined. Being extremely concerned and knowing information in other states on rabies it usually only takes 24 hours to find out if an animal is rabid, why are they waiting this long to release a report? And why is the Fish and Game officer having two hunters try and kill wolves in Greenhorn Gulch area. If it is rabies we have to inform the public now!! And take action. I thought that’s why we have Idaho Fish and Game to manage the wildlife, keeping hazardous heath information from the citizens of the United States Of America is not their job. I hope the wolves that died got kicked in the head by the elk, or bone fragments in the guts and that’s all. But the more time that goes by, the more guilty and withholding this appears. What say you!

Jennifer ********

*Update: February 14, 2012 – 8:30 a.m.*

Through inquiry by the Idaho for Wildlife, a response was received from Jerome Hansen, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, concerning testing results and/or information about the two wolves referred to above. I’ll paste the entire comment from Hansen:

“Hi Steve,

Thanks for the email. I have received feedback from Lee Garwood (Conservation Officer in Hailey, Dr. Mark Drew (our Veterinarian), and Steve Roberts, (Conservation Officer in Fairfield).

On January 22, 2012, Officers Garwood and Morris responded to a call about a sick or injured wolf in a driveway in the Starweather subdivision (North of Hailey). The wolf was collected and sent to our Veterinarian in Boise for necropsy. Dr. Drew told us today that he had necropsied the wolf about a week after receiving it. It was negative for rabies. The rest of the lab work is still outstanding, as to the actual cause of being so thin.

We don’t know what wolf north of Fairfield Jennifer is referring to. We did find 6 wolves dead north of Fairfield in the summer of 09, but after lab work, the most likely cause of death was determined to be Parvo. If we can provide any more info, don’t hesitate to ask.
Take care,
Jerome”

Share

Are Winter Ticks Killing Maine’s Moose Population?


Photo provided by Albert Ladd

Without even giving the debate on predator control in Maine a chance take root and accomplish goals, the debate now seems to be shifting toward the moose herd, including winter ticks and the new revelation that Maine has an estimated moose population of 75,000 or more.

Much of the fervor over winter ticks and moose began in early December when Terry Karkos, staff writer for the Sun Journal in Lewiston, Maine, penned an article about two guys who spent time in the woods last spring looking for shed antlers, found a lot of dead moose all covered with winter ticks.

He and a few friends said they found 50 dead moose calves and adult moose this year in the Jackman region while looking for horns and doing some spring fishing…………………

Eighteen people, including Mason, found 142 dead moose across Wildlife Management Districts 2, 4, 7, 8 and 12, which stretch from the Western Foothills to Aroostook County.

Those interviewed for the story attribute the deaths of these moose to winter ticks.

These are definitely not winter kill,” Mason said recently. “Of the typical winter kill animals like moose, it gets sick, it stands in a small area and basically you find 400 moose droppings and a dead moose in the middle of it………………………….

Every single one that I had found and that the other guys had found, the snow was just starting to come off them and they were totally untouched, so it’s obvious it’s not a predator kill,” Hall said. “You could see ticks right on them.

A deer and moose meat processor from Minot told Karkos, “I think we need a winter without any snow and about minus 30 (degrees) for a month and a half, because that’s the only way you’re going to get rid of them.”

That’s sort of the same story that seems to get spread around about winter ticks. There is information available and I think for the most part the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologists and others have done a respectable job getting out information about winter ticks.

In a November 6, 2011 Sun Journal article, once again Terry Karkos gets information from some of MDIFW’s biologists about the winter ticks.

Maine wildlife biologist Chuck Hulsey:

Winter ticks are affected by what the previous winter was,” Hulsey said Friday. “If you have a lot of snow and a lot of cold, that’s not good for the ticks. If you have less snow and more warmth, it’s really good for the ticks.

Maine wildlife biologist Lee Kantar:

In October and November, winter tick larvae climb shrubs and grasses, gather in huge clusters and wait to ambush moose as they walk past, Kantar said.

“When the ticks are on that bush and they sense the heat of the moose walking by, they basically grab a hold and the whole cluster of moose tick gets onto the moose,

There seems to be a bit more information about winter ticks that I haven’t found in any Maine publications that deals more in depth with what happens in the fall when the winter tick larvae are gathering on vegetation waiting for a free ride with a host. In addition to that, while these winter ticks effect all wild ungulates, why pick on the moose so much. And, it is said that the winter ticks don’t actually kill the moose, but rarely, are we looking at an honest assessment of all factors that kill a moose weakened by tens of thousands of blood sucking ticks?

Lee Kantar says that the winter tick is a “huge contributor” to the death of some moose, he also points out that, “it’s not the sole cause”. Even on the MDIFW website, information provided about moose states that, “winter tick and lung worm infestations rarely kill moose”.

This information is supported in existing studies about moose and winter ticks. William M. Samuel and Dwight A. Welch, “Winter Ticks on Moose and Other Ungulates: Factors Influencing Their Population Size” states that winter ticks (dermacentor albipictus) being the cause of death isn’t certain because, “unequivocal evidence is lacking”.

I think therefore it might be honest to conclude that the cause of death in the majority of dead moose being found in the Maine woods that are inundated with ticks, was not the tick alone. There had to have been other factors. We’ll address those in a moment.

First I think it important to better understand what takes place in the fall of the year. We have read statements from biologists and outdoor sportsmen that seem to indicate that Maine needs little snow and very cold temperatures to kill off the ticks. While that may be true it’s not the entire story in the life cycle of these ticks.

Samuel and Welch state that for there to be significant die-offs of winter ticks, you need 6 consecutive days in which the temperature does not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not the only way to kill the ticks and/or lessen the severity of ticks on moose.

During the fall months, in Maine’s climate around September and October, the winter tick larvae find their way onto vegetation. They clump together on the ends of small branches etc. These larvae can be found on vegetation just above the ground to quite high up in trees. The larvae wait until a passing, warm-bodied host, in this case a moose, passes by and then they attach themselves to the moose and the ride begins. You can read all the splendid details by reading the studies, etc.

It is during this time of year, September/October, that certain weather events can have a significant effect on how severe the tick season will become. Early cold temperatures, especially those below freezing, will greatly reduce the activity of the larvae, i.e. limiting their effectiveness of attaching themselves to the moose or even migrating up the stems of vegetation.

Early snows can bury the larvae and stiff fall winds will blow the larvae off the vegetation scattering it around and to the ground preventing the larvae from being able to find a host. The studies of Samuel and Welch, as well as others, seem to agree that the weather events of the fall have a greater effect on tick production than hoping for enough snow and cold in winter to kill the ticks. Without a host, the larvae die.

There are other interesting things to be discovered about moose and winter ticks. For example, these winter ticks bother all wild ungulates, i.e. deer, moose, elk, etc., but most scientists will agree that it seems to be the moose that is the most effected. It is assumed that it all has to do with timing.

The aggregation of the larvae on vegetation seems to more closely fall in line with the timing of the moose mating season. During this time, moose are most active, covering greater amounts of territory than normal and male moose travel more than the females and thus explains the observation by some that it seems bull moose are more effected by the winter ticks than cows. I believe this conclusion about bull moose vs. cow moose is based on assumptive reasoning than anything concluded through scientific study.

In the Samuel/Welch study, experiments were conducted and it was determined that moose have an aversion to larvae/tick infested food. Imagine if they didn’t. If moose have an ability to smell or sense the larvae on the vegetation and in their food, it might also help to explain the claims of some and what is obvious on the ground that predators and scavengers won’t touch the dead carcass of a tick infested moose.

Studies have shown us that there can exist tens of thousands of ticks on any one moose and that this number of ticks can certainly put the moose into a weakened state. Moose are already in a weakened state just trying to survive the winters. Compound that with 50,000 ticks and the problems snowball. However, as we have learned, the ticks alone rarely kill a moose but certainly contribute to it.

When the blood sucking begins, the moose spends much of it’s time “grooming”. Studies tell us that moose that are troubled by the biting ticks do not bed down as often nor as long as non infected moose. This of course tires the animal even more.

While studies seem to be lacking on exactly what happens to the composition of the moose’s blood while all these ticks are feasting, it is honest to assume that the more female, blood sucking ticks there are on a moose, factoring also the moose’s body mass, the greater a weakened state is realized due to loss of blood.

All of these factors and more, make the moose more vulnerable to all the other elements that contribute to normal winter kill. In other words, it becomes more difficult to get enough nourishment; loss of blood and reduced winter hair makes the moose more susceptible to hypothermia; spending so much time “grooming” expends valuable energy needed for survival and with all these losses a moose certainly could not ward off attacks and harassment by predators.

This is perhaps where I’ll get ambushed but please consider the facts and possibilities. There is no denying that coyotes/wolves will harass and kill moose, deer and elk during their weakened winter states. Even though it is seen and believed to be accurate that predators and even scavengers will not touch a tick-infested moose carcass, at what point does a pack of hungry wolves/coyotes know their target is tick infested.

Some of us have been made aware through written and video accounts of how these predators take down and kill, often eating alive, their prey. We have also seen videos and photographs that document coyotes and wolves chasing down their prey. How long could a moose, weakened by normal winter strains and tick infestation, last in trying to run away from a predator attack? Not long I’m afraid. Would the moose have survived if the predator wasn’t there? There’s no way of knowing the answer to that question.

Which brings us once again back to the same point about predators. It seems that when all things within our forests are going well, little concern is given to predators and the effects they have on our game animals. When things get skewed, those populations of predators loom large over the forests and can raise some serious cane even to a point of prohibiting the rebuilding of a herd of deer or moose, in this case a herd that might be suffering some from these blasted ticks.

So, what do we do about the ticks? What can we do? In one report a gentleman suggested some kind of spraying program to kill the ticks but I’m not sure how feasible that is or if that’s something we want to pour onto our landscapes. We can’t control the weather but we can control the predators. But, is that the answer either to this exact equation?

In George Smith’s blog post yesterday, he explained that one Dr. Anthony who attended a recent information session on Maine’s moose, suggested that instead of trying to limit hunting permits for moose to protect them due to increased mortality from ticks, that killing more of the moose might be the better solution.

I’ll leave you with some questions. Feel free to chime in below in the comments section with some answers.

1. According to George Smith’s blog post I referenced above, in 2007 the estimated moose population of Maine was 45,000. Now Lee Kantar, Maine’s head deer and moose biologist claims there are 75,000 or more. Are there now too many moose in Maine which is exacerbating the tick problem?

2. If so, do we kill more moose during the moose hunt? Or do we protect more moose?

3. George Smith states that the new moose counts are, “more credible than any previous estimates”. He offers no substantive proof of his claim. Do you think the new counts are more “credible” or accurate than previous and why?

Who would have thought 35 years ago Maine would be asking if the state had too many moose?

Tom Remington

Share

Maine Hunters Funding Efforts to Provide Moose Watching For Tourists

George Smith, former executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and current free-lance writer who covers many of Maine’s outdoor issues, filed a report on his blog yesterday about activities that took place at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Part of Smith’s article included a report on moose by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW), Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist.

Kantar claimed that Maine would be leading the nation in moose research and management and described new research initiatives, including surveys using Maine Forest Service helicopters and pilots………………..

“We’ve gone a long way… but it’s limited,” acknowledged Kantar. When asked by Rep. Jane Eberle how many moose we have, Kantar said he couldn’t answer that question definitively. But he did provide an estimate of 75,000 moose, a very high number that will embolden those calling for more hunting permits. Kantar warned against that, noting the importance of balancing all demands for moose from tourism to hunting.

There are a couple things to note in this information. If Kantar says he “estimates” 75,000, historically all wildlife biologists low ball estimates. So how many moose does Maine really have? 100,000? Regardless, at the rate the state is going the moose herd will soon outnumber the deer herd.

Which brings me to another point to be made. Yesterday I reported on efforts by the State of Maine to make the Moose Lottery more fair. In that article I suggested the idea of a mocked down version of the current “Any-Deer Permit” system, the only deer management policy the state employs. The question now becomes one of asking if a continued deer hunt in a shrinking deer herd is good enough for deer management, shouldn’t a short moose hunting season be good enough for moose management?

But the issue I wanted to point out is what is wrong with wildlife management today. Mr. Kantar states that Maine needs to be careful about killing more moose because it might mess with the “balancing all demands for moose from tourism to…..” Where is the science in that? Why are my license fees being used to provide moose watching opportunities while limiting my opportunities to hunt the game species I’m investing in? Maine is trying to generate tax revenue through tourism out of the wallets of the outdoor sportsmen. Where will it all end? It all makes me very ill!

Also consider how Maine’s game management, if you want to call it that, has changed over the years. What once was a deer hunting mecca, the Great North Woods of Maine, has now become a paradise for providing moose for tourists to look at and putting video cameras in bear dens, how cute, which no doubt will result in more demands by environmentalists and animal rights advocates to stop hunting and killing black bears and moose.

Below is a “Metamorphosis Part I and Part II” of a Maine Deer Biologist as compiled by contributor Richard Paradis of Maine. Maybe, just maybe, this closer resembles reality than tongue in cheek and also consider the prophetic claims, laced with environmental truths of today.

Share