November 20, 2019

It’s Hard To Believe But The Eyes See True

I did ten miles in the Frank Church a few days ago.. Where the trails I walked since the 70-80s-90s were elk and deer highways. Later on in the late 90s- to 2007-08 those same trails became wolf highways.

Now, the last few years, 2010-2019 those trails are nothing walks them highways. It’s puzzling. I met a couple from Oregon in there and they asked me, where are the elk? I said wolf. And walked on..

Now my thought is this.. IDFG has been lying about elk and deer populations. And not only that, they are lying about wolf population as well.

I think they’re lying about the harvest report data for those three species.. I don’t think IDFG nor the Federal government, USFWS, wants us to know the truth.. Those agencies combined wildlife management has become a tragedy here in Idaho.

Another tragedy is taking place as of yesterday, 10-15-19. IDFG let out 5,000 elk tags for the combined units of 43-44-48-49-50.. They will likely claim 500 elk harvested.

Fortunately, as I was in hunt unit 43-44 yesterday for the day.. The empty camp grounds and THs might possibly mean that IDFGs lies are catching up to them.. The back country has been sterile of wildlife for years. The rural areas private lands are holding some elk..

I did not hear a single shot fired in unit 43. I have not seen magpies nor crows back there in years.. No bear scat, no wolf tracks, coyotes, wolverines, cougars..

It’s hard to believe the obvious mismanagement of wildlife..

I expect the trespassing citations are about to boom.. Because the land holders don’t want elk hunters on their land..

Things have seriously devolved here in Idaho concerning wildlife since 1995.. It’s a tragedy..

Share

Skin and Process a Deer in 10 Minutes

I don’t agree with everything he claims will happen to the meat by field dressing an animal. I hunted in terrain where moving an undressed out deer and elk would be impossible. I field dressed and boned out my elk and deer and did not have dirt urine feces and hair on the meat. Although this is an interesting lesson. I’ve seen this done before many times over the years..

Share

There Is Intelligent Life In Canada

Share

Wolf Mushroom Cloud Is a U.N.E.P. Intentional Disaster

Central Idaho elk and deer herds have suffered the same negative results from the wolf paradigm as described herein..

Share

Pretty in Pink? Or, An Amish Meeting Has Begun?

*Editor’s Note* – I must apologize for the gross error that I made when I wrote this article. Whether it was old age or just laziness and stupidity, I referred to the group in Maine who lobbied for an exemption to wearing hunter orange clothing as the Quakers. I have written more than one article in the past year about this event and in those articles, I correctly referred to the group as the Amish, not the Quakers. I have gone through the below article and changed the name of Quaker to Amish. I apologize if I have offended some. It was not my intention. Thank you. (2/1/18 9:30 a.m.) Find previous articles here, here, here, here.

I knew it only a matter of time before a ridiculous law the State of Maine passed allowing a group of Amish, who say they can’t wear bright clothing, don’t have to wear Hunter Orange as is required by law, before other groups would jump in making demands of what kind and/or color clothing they prefer to wear while hunting.

Maine, even though it decided that the reason the state requires Hunter Orange clothing is for safety, got trumped by a stupid request from a tiny bunch of Amish seeking an exemption from wearing the “bright colored” clothing.

Now it appears that in Michigan a bill has been introduced that will allow anyone, not just women (after all it is difficult to tell the difference these days), to wear blaze pink when they go hunting, because as one person stated, “Women prefer to always look and feel attractive (even while hunting), having pink as an option can help with any insecurities over what they are wearing, pink is a color that can immediately identify a female, women don’t want to be mistaken for a man, even from a distance or in the woods.”

There is an argument that can be made that women don’t want to look like men. Everywhere I go today, I see what I think are women dressed up like men and vice-versa. Is it important that the few women who want to “feel attractive” while hunting, forego the hunting safety issue just as Maine did when it came to appeasing a group of Amish?

As someone so eloquently put it, “Nobody looks good wearing hunter orange!” Hunting isn’t a fashion statement and the last time I checked it wasn’t restricted to only one sex. Did lawmakers act in a sexist fashion to devise this safety law? If the laws were devised for public safety, and that safety issue is a time-proven event, then religious sects who think their god will send them to eternal damnation, should stop hunting. What god would condemn bright clothing but allow getting all bloody killing animals. And if women feel it necessary to “feel attractive” while hunting, take up modeling.

All of this is just completely insane and proves the world has gone insane. One man was quoted as saying, “This borders on the absurd.” No, it doesn’t border on the absurd. It is beyond that. There is no longer any sense or sensibility or the reasoning skills and mental prowess to even know the difference.

INSANITY!

 

Share

Better to Remain Silent

It appears that I am always returning to the adage: Better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Or as is found in Proverbs 17:28: (Wycliffe Bible) “Also a fool, if he is still, shall be guessed a wise man; and, if he presseth together his lips, he is guessed an understanding man.”

Here I go reading again! I was reading an article online about how one “outdoor writer” stated that hunters can mistake another hunter for game. He expressed it in these terms: “If it hasn’t happened to you yet, it probably will.”

Most disturbing about this piece is there is no differentiating between the actions by every hunter to sift through the hundreds upon thousands of objects his eyes take in in one day of hunting and seeing something and shooting at it or killing it.

This is followed by a bunch of psycho-babble about how the brain will see only what it wants to see and when a hunter is so anxious to see game and shoot it, he or she will pull the trigger on such things as a box of Marlboro cigarettes.

A friend of mine was a Maine Humorist. One of his albums he recorded was titled, “Tall Tales and Damned Lies.” Some of this guy’s claims belong in Joe Perham’s Tall Tales and Damned Lies. The author writes: “That explains why virtually every truly experienced turkey hunter I know has been shot at least once.”

Either this guy knows only a handful of “experienced” turkey hunters who are total, brain-dead idiots, or he lies longer than a bearskin rug. Evidently, he buys into the psycho-babble of whom he quotes in this article who says, “the more experienced the hunter,…the more likely you are to be tricked by your ‘mind’s eye.'”

For crying out loud! Years have been spent to educate hunters in recognizing their targets. In Maine, for example, the hunter is 100% responsible to recognize his or her target BEFORE they pull the trigger. Nothing is foolproof. Mistakes can happen but they are rare. Listening to this guy one is led to believe everyone who hunts gets shot and the more experienced you are at hunting the greater your risk of shooting someone.

Hunters don’t need enemies when they have friends like this.

Share

QDMA Whitetail Deer Report for 2016

Below is the link to the 2016 Quality Deer Management Association Report on whitetail deer. Bear in mind a couple of things. One, I am not a very big fan of QDMA for various reasons. One reason is because I believe they put too much focus on “trophy” hunting and manipulating the resource towards that end. Another issue to consider, should you choose to review this report, is that it is a great example of the saying, “Statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” While QDMA is presenting information about declines and increases in yearling buck harvest and/or buck harvest in general, as well as antlerless deer, it offers no explanations of why. It’s one thing to report declines or increases in yearling buck harvest, for example, even to go to the point of suggesting trends, but to make specific claims requires much greater knowledge and information about all aspects that effect deer management and hunting harvests.

One might suspect that with QDMA’s insistent pushing for antler point restrictions (for trophy hunting purposes), it would seem logical that the buck harvest might decrease when such restrictions are put in place. The same kind of unknown comparison can be applied to reports in changes of antlerless deer. In states, like Maine, that use “Any-Deer Permits” to regulate the populations of deer, significant changes in the allotment of such permits, as has been the case in recent years, obviously affects the harvest data.

That isn’t to say the report is worthless. It contains interesting data and if taken in its context and applied subjectively and honestly, within the smallest denominator of available data in each state, one might find some interesting comparatives, assuming most things remain consistent…and they don’t.

QDMA’s Whitetail Report 2016

Share

Are Anti-Hunters Educable?

Some are, most aren’t. I’m not quite so optimistic as the author, although he does present good points. The author also points out that our own fish and wildlife departments almost never get off their lazy, brainwashed asses and work toward educating those that need educating. As a matter of fact, most members of fish and wildlife agencies are responsible for feeding the media echo-chambers with the lies and “emotion-driven diatribe” that the anti hunters feed off.

As the old saying goes, who needs enemies when you have friends like this?

“I’ve presented many talks and slide programs to non-hunting organizations and groups. I always include some hard-core hunting, trapping and predator management material in the program. On occasion, I’ve purposely baited an anti or two in the crowd, who invariably let their mouth overload their ass and give me an opportunity to override and stifle their attention seeking, emotion-driven diatribe with simple facts and personal experience to the contrary of what they have been misled and misinformed into believing.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Renowned Conservationist, RMEF Promote Relevance of Hunting

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Did Man Extirpate the Caribou from Maine?

I was reading Part II of V. Paul Reynolds’ report about “Wildlife Restoration Projects.” He wrote mostly about Maine’s two attempts to restore caribou to northern Maine and seemed to suggest that with years of gained knowledge, perhaps it was time to try again. I’m not so sure about that, but…..

I did want to add to something that he wrote about the extirpation of caribou in Maine when he wrote: “Historical documents indicate that Maine’s last remaining caribou were killed off by market hunters who sold them to big city restaurants.” I won’t deny that market hunters made serious dents in deer, moose and caribou herds in their day. However, there are other historical documents that equally indicate the vanishing act of caribou and wolves cannot all be blamed on unregulated hunting.

A few years ago I did an extensive research piece on wolves in Maine from the 1600s until the time they were essentially declared missing in action. Readers should understand that this work was nearly 100% taken from the book, “Early Maine Wildlife: Historical accounts of Canada Lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603-1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving – The University of Maine Press, Orono, Maine 2010.

It seemed that around the mid-1800s there existed, even then, disagreements as to whether deer, moose and caribou “disappeared” due to wolves or hunters. One writer made the claim, “Curiously enough there are old settlers in Maine who retain the theory that wolves follow deer. They claim that there were no deer at the time of the wolves – ‘the wolves killed them all off’ – but that since the extermination of the wolves the deer have gone on increasing.”

A hunter and trapper, in the book described as experienced, claimed: “In 1853 wolves were very plenty, and for the next five years were not scarce, plenty could be found within sixteen miles of Bangor in 1857 and 1858. They seemed to leave quite suddenly, the last I know of positively being taken was killed by Frank Fairbanks in 1860 in Munsengun. I know the wolves were not exterminated, as from the time they were quite plenty till the time they disappeared, very few skins were brought in. They left of their own accord, just as the caribou left us.”

Those that have some knowledge of the habits and behavior of wolves, understand that many things influence their behavior. For example, at times wolves can eat up all their prey. If this happens, the wolf moves on and the possibility exists that if the prey doesn’t return, neither will the wolf. If there exists alternative prey, i.e. there is more than one prey species to feed wolves, the large predator canine may never leave an area. It would probably require quite a number of wolves in Maine to seriously reduce or extirpate moose, deer and caribou.

In the quote above, we read of the first indication that wolves were not “exterminated” and simply up and left “just as the caribou left us.” This should be important information to consider.

According to evidence found in the book of reference, wolves were mostly gone from the state by the mid-1800s. From around 1860 into the early 1900s, there were very few, to almost zero, recorded wolf kills – the last official wolf kill took place in Andover, Maine in 1920.

One account in the Maine Sportsman, in 1900, of the absence of wolves, claims that, “During the whole winter we saw no deer and but few moose, the entire absence of deer being due to the wolves with which the woods were overrun. Caribou we saw everywhere and I plainly remember that one day, coming out upon them trailing along in single file was a herd of 17 caribou.”

It would seem this would indicate that with reports of wolves being missing from Maine by the mid-1800s, that in 1900, some 40 or 50 years later, there were still quite a few caribou, or at least more of them seen than deer or moose. One must honestly consider that if caribou “recovered” after a presumed disappearance of wolves, in 40 or 50 years, wouldn’t the deer and moose have recovered? Because there are so many influencing factors in wildlife management, that question cannot be simply answered. Other accounts from this book also indicate that after what appeared to be the absence of wolves, deer, moose and caribou made recoveries.

We also know that in the late 1800s Maine began it’s work to regulate the hunting and fishing activities throughout the state, with regulations well in force by the early 1900s.

Examination of the information provided in this book help to support the historic behavior of wolves, i.e. that once they had reduced the numbers of the prey to a certain level, the wolves took off for better hunting grounds. However, this event appears to have occurred nearly 50 years before the caribou disappeared.

It cannot be argued that many factors contributed to the disappearance of the caribou in Maine. That disappearance cannot and should not be completely attributed to hunting. We know that after the wolves mostly disappeared from Maine, the deer, moose and caribou recovered. If in 1900 loggers were reporting seeing “herds of 17 caribou” it was not market hunters and uncontrolled hunting that killed them after that.

If Maine was ever going to seriously consider a third try at caribou restoration, many, many factors must be considered other than introducing more of them this time. Perhaps the habitat of northern Maine simply cannot support caribou any longer. If caribou, in the very early 1900s, one day just walked out of the state – some believe they moved into New Brunswick and never returned – there had to be reasons. Do we know what those reasons were? Are we interested in finding out? Perhaps knowing what took place in the early 1900s would answer a lot of questions as to whether another attempt at caribou restoration would work.

Some things to consider:

Share