October 23, 2020

Maine: Hunting Ethics and Hunting in Deer Yards

I read a very good article this morning written by Maine’s outdoor writer Bob Humphrey about issues with deer hunters being able to hunt deer in deer wintering habitat.

Often, as Mr. Humphrey points out, deer do not journey to their wintering areas until after the deer hunting season. In some cases, where winter seems to come early (where’s that Global Warming?), deer have begun to congregate in the yards before the end of the season, especially during the late-season muzzleloader hunt.

I have written about the effects of the late-season muzzleloader hunt, which appears to fall on mostly deaf ears. This article does not address the real concern with late hunts, regardless of whether those late hunts involve an early yarding up of deer.

It is accurate that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) manipulates seasons, bag limits, issuance of permits, etc. to control the deer population in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD). What is not known, because it is never discussed, is whether, in that consideration of manipulation tactics, the idea of deer harassment, which can cause a higher degree of mortality, is actually considered.

Even when winter doesn’t come early, the late-season muzzleloader hunt, causes added stress to an already stressed and weakened buck herd. The annual rut (mating season) has mostly concluded (there may be still some activity in some areas) by the end of the regular rifle season in most of Maine. The bucks can be quite worn out, having burned up stored fat supplies due to excessive “rutting” habits. With reduced fat supplies, bucks become vulnerable to the effects of severe winters.

If the deer have moved into yards early, that means conditions are such that harassment of any deer in a winter yard, places possible detrimental effects on any deer, especially a tired out buck who has been performing his duties.

When people begin discussing hunting ethics, attempting to link ethics to a decision as to whether or not certain hunting tactics should be legal or not, the discussion becomes a pitting of one person’s perspective against another. When the state makes laws prohibiting certain hunting tactics, it is no longer a matter of hunting ethics but that of legal ethics.

If the law allows hunting in deer wintering areas, whether a hunter chooses to hunt there should be decided by that individual’s preferences and perspectives. One would only hope that the deer managers are considering the mortality rates that can be attributed to late-season hunting in deer yards that is caused by the continued hunter effort and harassment, regardless of the degree of harassment.

Share

Lost The Connection

All I have to say is, read read read.. To understand the disconnect.. Double Speak.. World Wide Eugenics.. A strategy of depopulation. The design of which began as early as the late 1800s.. Brazenly released in this tome of 1995.. To many will never comprehend it.. Sustainable Development is in fact eugenics. A reorganized economic model designed to only support reset population objectives for the human species.. Cleverly implemented into all U.N. Nation States.. Intentional mismanagement of resources..

Share

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

An Ethical Shot?

I was reading V. Paul Reynolds very good article the other day about how important it is when hunting moose, to do your best in placing a killing shot. What I got thinking about though was the idea that so many writers/hunters/trappers these days put emphasis on the term of an “ethical” shot or “ethical” kill.

Let’s first examine the definition of the term “ethical.” By definition, ethical means: “relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. Morally good or correct. Avoiding activities or organizations that do harm to people or the environment.”

Hmmm! It seems we need to examine what “moral” means. “Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.” Er, ah… or maybe: “Examining the nature of ethics and the foundations of good and bad character and conduct.”

Getting closer: “Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.”

I think this one pretty much covers what drives comments about “taking an ethical shot” when hunting. “Concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society.”

So, essentially an “ethical” shot means one that accomplishes the “morally good” conduct that meets the standing acceptable behavior in this particular society at this particular moment.

Perfect! Not really. It’s hogwash!

Geez! If we are going to get all “moral” about this issue of shooting and killing, then perhaps those opposed to hunting have some valid ground to stand on. I mean, seriously. Is killing anything “morally ethical” in this “particular society?”

We hunt for various reasons. To be successful hunters must kill. We hope the kill is quick, for more reasons than just “ethical.” Some practice their skill of hitting a target. Some are better equipped to make “ethical” kills than others. They have better eyes and coordination to make a quick “ethical” kill.

But let’s face it. When we pull the trigger are we really thinking about ethics? Or are we thinking much of anything except we hope we make the shot and not have to chase our prey all day?

I understand the desire of many to not allow any animal that is a resource to suffer when being taken. I think it is dishonest to lay the term “ethical” onto any taking. I think it is more ethical to be honest about the truth than to place some conjured term to the act of shooting to kill.

Perhaps we can find a better more honest word or term to describe simply a quick kill. Oh, hey! Why not “quick kill?”

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

Anti-Hunting Mental Drool

Along with the time of year when there is much activity with hunting and trapping, we all regularly are subjected to the mental drool of those who don’t like any of the activities. Maybe if they just said I don’t like hunting and trapping and left it at that, some of us wouldn’t bother to single them out to expose their limited mental capacities while disparaging a worthwhile, long-standing, cultural heritage that has unlimited benefits to both man and wildlife – hunting.

A letter scribbler in the Bangor Daily News called hunting and trapping “incivil” – evidently meaning that any reporting in the news about hunting and trapping is offensive, rude, or impolite. The writer also called hunting and trapping an unworthy event and unsportsmanlike and said hunting was no longer “fair chase.”

Here’s a couple of things to ponder. Most of these terms – fair chase, sportsmanlike, etc. – have been crafted by men over the years perhaps as a means of pulling the wool over someone’s eyes about hunting and trapping. They are man-made terms much the same as when some mental midget declares hunting is an act to “prove one’s manhood.”

Fair chase is really nothing but abiding by the laws crafted by men for men to hunt and trap animals for consumptive use. All rules and regulations for hunting and trapping are grounded in species management and public safety – nothing more. I never thought of hunting as a “sport” therefore sportsmanship had nothing to do with the act. I see hunting as something I enjoy doing that occasionally (emphasis on occasionally) rewards me with a few good meals of healthy meat.

So give it a rest already. Take your “fair chase” and “sportsmanship” to the athletic field, where these days everyone gets a “trophy.” Hunting and trapping are a well developed scientific necessity to responsibly manage and maintain a healthy and sustainable game population.

The other issue is one in which I’ve never quite understood. Obvious this whiner takes offense – finds incivility – in news reports about hunting and trapping, and yet in order to find offense, the person must be reading the reports.

As this writer mentions, they find politicians offensive and rude, as do I. I find the solution sensible. Stop reading the articles and looking at the pictures. Any moron should understand that basic concept, but evidently, that is above the capacity of some who would rather whine, bitch, and complain about something they know nothing about.

 

Share

The Ethics of Baiting Deer….or Any Other Game Animal

Maine has recently passed a law prohibiting the “feeding” of deer from August 15th to December 15. This Act was supported by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), which should be no surprise as we know MDIFW has tried for years to ban the act of feeding deer at anytime.

However, the real issue, I think, is the prevention of “baiting” deer for the purpose of improving your chances of taking a deer during the archery, rifle or muzzleloader seasons.

In V. Paul Reynolds article this week, he says that in this debate about baiting deer, ethics should be part of the discussion. But ethics of any kind, can be a very sticky wicket.

Who decides what is ethical? For years I have written about ethics as it may apply to hunting and still believe, within the written laws, ethics is a personal perspective.

I support the baiting of bear for harvest purposes because there is a need to limit or reduce the growth of the black bear populations in Maine. It is my understanding that the MDIFW mostly sees the bear baiting issue much the same way. In short, it is a necessary management tool, even if it perceived by some as ugly. Without this tool, the alternative may be even uglier.

Because most of Maine has few deer and historically the state has never really been overrun with deer, the need to call for the implementation of baiting as a management tool to reduce numbers, has never been necessary and is definitely not needed today.

But this really has little to do with ethics. I’m not a bear hunter but I can clearly say that if I was, I would NOT bait – unless, of course, I was very, very hungry. I am a deer hunter and I would NOT bait deer for much the same reasons. I don’t necessarily object to those who choose to bait their game, where legal, but I personally would not care to implement baiting regardless of how, if any, doing so effects the odds of bagging game.

I have often read those who define ethics as, “what you do when nobody’s watching.” While this may be partially true, personal ethics goes beyond whether or not someone chooses to stay within the bounds of regulations. Short of legitimate regulations to guide the scientific management of game animals, it should NEVER be left up to Government to attempt legislating ethics. When you consider the corrupt and unethical existence of Government at all levels, surely one cannot seriously ask such an entity to make the decisions as to what is ethical and not ethical.

We have been brainwashed and manipulated into a totalitarian form of existence in which one of the greatest problems in today’s society is that “useful idiots,” i.e. the totalitarian sheep, believe it is their right and their duty of conquest to tell others how to live.

To what degree ethics should be discussed in this debate about baiting deer, would be a crap shoot and more than likely would only serve to create more problems. Within the laws of man, whether or not we agree with them, my personal ethics should remain as such…personal. If I strongly believe in my own ethical practices, perhaps, and I mean perhaps, I might share that philosophy with friends…if they care to know. Besides that, I mind my own business and expect that same respect in return.

Here is a link to the story of how Maine’s record Boone and Crockett buck was shot over a pile of “bait” – culled potatoes.

Share

Is There Outrage? Man Kills Bear With a Spear

I realize the risk I am taking by even attempting to point out the obvious, emotional clap-trap and hypocrisy showing its ugly side from both “hunters” and “animal rights” people.

I found on Drudge, a link to an article about how both hunters and environmentalists are “outraged” over a person, whom they call a “hunter” who filmed his act of hunting a bear over a pile of bait, manipulating himself to get close enough to throw a spear (labeled “home made” in the article) at and kill a black bear. The hunt took place in Canada; legally I am presuming.

What of that so-called outrage?

First, let me write from a position of transparency. I have hunted for close to 55 years. I’ve never shot a bear. Never wanted to shoot a bear. Never hunted specifically for bear. I’ve never hunted over bait, but I understand when game management makes adjustments to hunting techniques in order to achieve game management goals. I’ve never hunted on a hunting ranch, behind fences, nor do I have any desire to do so. I hunt for the enjoyment and I kill to eat.

If we take a closer look at the nonsense of the article, with an open mind, perhaps rationality can make a bit more sense of what took place. The article epitomizes the emotional nonsense often associated with acts of hunting or killing animals. This is only understood when we examine that those who emote the so-called outrage, do so from the perspective that animals are like men in all senses of the definition, i.e. that it has feelings, understands and experiences human traits such as suffering, agony, pain, diminution of pride, experiences humiliation, understands respect, etc.

If this is a person’s mindset about animals, there is little hope that any sense of understanding can be gained or taught. And this is what the news article does. In addition, Drudge, obviously more interested in getting his website traffic higher, publishes this clap-trap nonsense hoping to embellish the event regardless of any truth.

It would only be right to take a look at the “hunter” in this case. From the article, we discover he was a former athlete – a javelin thrower in college. Presently he evidently owns a “fitness company” and is described in the article as a “bodybuilder” and “fitness fanatic.” Does this fact alone give understanding as to how a person of this background, an obvious narcissist, as I believe all bodybuilders must be, would go out of his way to film the event (mostly of himself) and then react the way he did. Perhaps his biggest wrong in this entire event was that he filmed it and put it up on YouTube before giving it much thought to his self-centered reactions, etc.

Upon examination of the article, obviously a one-sided diatribe of emotional, value-laced idiocy, it’s clear to see that no rational thought was put into it. Here’s a grocery list of the terms and adjectives used in this article to describe the hunt, the hunted, and the hunter:

Bloodthirsty; disturbing; sick; slaughtering; slow and painful; poor animal; intestines pour out of its stomach; fitness fanatic; cruel; cheap act; colossal beast; disgusting; mindless jackass; shameless stunt; demean the animal; shameful spectacle of pseudo bravado; pure selfish bloodlust; heartlessly slaughtered for fun; desire for a thrill; expense of innocent life.

Of course all descriptions of the event are value-weighted, which really means nothing to anyone except those offering their perspective of their ideology and theories about animals. Not that it matters to anyone else, but the first time I clicked on the news article, I had to sit through about 20 seconds of an advertisement about MTV. From my perspective, what goes on regularly on MTV is as disgusting, perhaps more so, than the killing of this bear and filming it. MTV, one of the great promoters of social decadence, immorality, violence, homosexuality, racism, bigotry, sexism, hatred, drug and alcohol use and abuse, introduces the article in which we are left to understand that what MTV promotes is acceptable behavior, at least by the newspaper, and what happens in a video of a bear hunt is not. It seems to me this society has things quite mixed up.

The article says, but provides no links to substantiate, that a “hunter” from a “popular” US hunting website finds the video “disgusting.” Supposedly, the hunter claims this act of spearing a bear “demeans” the bear and then he chastises the hunter demanding he “show some respect for the animal.” Seriously, with a straight face, can you “demean” a bear? And can a bear recognize the actions of this hunter as being disrespectful? This supposed same hunter is quoted as saying, “If you want to take an animal humanely (which you obviously could care less about) then shoot it with a rifle.” What I would like to know is how, specifically taking an animal with a rifle, is more humane than with a spear? But, first, define “humane.” Humane is of or pertaining to human traits. Humans have a brain that offers them the ability to place values on certain actions and reactions of persons. Animals do not. Sorry if I’ve startled anyone here.

This hunter, said to have left a comment on the hunting website, and other environmentalists, think it’s wrong that the hunter, shows happy and excitable emotions after killing the bear. If hunters want to think of this act, whether it’s the method of kill or the reactions of the hunter, as something we have trouble with, then is it because for so many years we have come to accept the televised hunting shows of killing wild game, and hunters showing excitement and happiness over their kill, and this is somehow different? Oh, yes. Lest I forget. Film editing has managed to remove the “disgusting” and “inhumane” events that go on during the filming of an “ethical” and “humane” hunt for enjoyment and a “trophy.”

We are left with making up our minds as to who is lying and who is not in the article. The author of the article says the guides went back the next day to locate the bear. The environmentalists say the bear “MIGHT” have suffered for 20 hours or more. The hunter said it was a clean, ethical kill, that the bear went 60 yards and dropped dead. Well, which was it and does it really matter?

Assuming the entire hunt was legal, then what’s the big deal. All animal worshipers react emotionally to hunting and trapping. It’s what they do! This is nothing new. I don’t understand the need to film every act that people do and plaster it all over the Internet; in this case a bear hunt. But, then again, I don’t understand the need of people who react the way they do to films of hunting, to watch the videos and agonize over them. Making the videos and watching them in agony – there is something quite perverse in both events.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

Share

A Wolf Is A Wolf Is A Wolf Just A Good Wolf Just Because They Say So

All things positive about wolves have been evolving over the years while all things negative about wolves has been suppressed and swept under the rug.. Thus any balance sharing the positives and negatives which justifies management of wolves for various purposes such as positive elk herd growth for the preservation of consumptive use multiple use which benefits ranching at the same time has been non existent because of the dishonesty of the IWC and the various anti grazing anti ranching, anti hunting pseudo environmentalist groups who are willing to get in bed with animal rights anti hunting fruitcakes who chatter endlessly about nothing relevant..

Enough nonsense has been repeatedly repeated about the good wolf that does no harm.. Now laugh After Me…

HoHoHoHoHoHawHawHawHawHeeHeeHeeHeeHee…. Wolf Pimps, you can shit yourselves but not Me…

Gawblesmurka!!!

Share

Three Questions About the Ethics of Wildlife Management

*Editor’s Note* – The below opinion piece is a classic example of ignorance as it pertains to wildlife management. That ignorance is driven by emotional nonsense of “ethics,” and “values.”

The author claims that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) manages wildlife from the perspective of “the end justifies the means.” He bases this incomplete thought process on what appears to be a belief that the MDIFW manages game animals strictly for the purpose of harvest. Harvest is only one part of the North American Wildlife Management Model. This is reflected in the agency’s efforts in controlling and limiting harvest numbers in all game species when necessary. It is dishonest to lead people to believe MDIFW’s call for harvest of game is to appease the hunters because they buy licenses. I know of no hunters or trappers who would promote any fish and game agency to recklessly allow unrestricted harvest simply to pay the bills.

The author’s revelation of how he enjoys “hearing” coyotes and that hunting and trapping of coyotes is strictly for the purpose of protecting deer for hunters, is ignorant and dishonest.

It would appear that the author espouses to a “natural balance” – a false theory that if man would simply butt out of wildlife management all things would be in perfect balance. That simply is not true. I guarantee that if that practice was employed, it wouldn’t be long before people would realize the results are extremely undesirable.

Too many coyotes destroy far more than deer and they also carry and spread many diseases – many of them harmful and some deadly to humans.

The third complaint this author has is that managing wildlife makes wildlife less wild. I would concur that idea carries some merit depending upon the level to which such wildlife/habitat manipulation is taking place. However, if anyone is going to get on that wagon, then they must also stay on that wagon to argue against the introduction or reintroduction of all wildlife, in all locations, for all reasons.

If, for example, stocking Atlantic salmon fry in attempts to restore a robust salmon population, makes one believe the fish are no longer wild but farmed, then the Federal Government has no business introducing/reintroducing wolves or any other species or subspecies. It also should not be allowed to protect one species at the detriment of others, including the species of man.

Realism often gets in the way of idealism. While the author in question here certainly has the right to his opinions about wildlife management, that right doesn’t carry over in order to force another’s lifestyle and supposed “ethics” onto the others.

I see much of wildlife management within the MDIFW as a win/win trade-off. The author seems to take issue with the idea that hunters harvest game. I believe it’s a small price to pay for an idealist in order that the overwhelming costs of being good stewards of our wildlife, is taken up by those willing to cough up the money in exchange for some meat in the freezer or some extra cash to help pay the bills.

MDIFW is not infallible. As a matter of fact, I could present a real good argument that much of what MDIFW does is more in line with the desires of this opinion-piece author.

Bears and coyotes do destroy a lot of deer over the course of time and is partly responsible for a deer herd that is sparse and struggling to recover in some areas. If MDIFW’s only concern was providing deer for hunters, they would have killed a lot more bear and coyotes than is the case.

Game species (deer) trump non-game species (coyotes) because the sale of licenses is the agency’s primary source of income.  If the agency were funded out of the general fund and license fees were not dedicated revenues, the agency would obviously need to be responsive to a broader constituency than just consumptive users.  For economists, this is a phenomenon we see in the public sector termed regulatory capture.  An interest group (consumptive wildlife users in this case) employs some technique to “captur

Source: Three Questions About the Ethics of Wildlife Management | Stirring the Pot

Share