January 26, 2020

Trickle-Down Nonsense of Moose Tick Infestations

This morning I was rereading a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) blog post about the department’s ongoing moose survival study. There is little hope that ever in my lifetime we will rid ourselves of the ignorant brainwashing that has caused a new religion of Climate Change Worship. I am left with the firm understanding that, beyond politics, the science of climate change, has been replaced with the Scientism of utter nonsense. There is no hope. Regardless of whatever reality is, whether natural or man-made, the inability to understand simple concepts has been bred out of this post-normal society. Such is the case within our wildlife management departments worldwide. All that is known is we’re all gonna die from Climate Change.

There’s nothing I can say or do that is going to have any influence on the epidemic that has overtaken this dystopian totalitarian existence.

But maybe there is hope to some degree…or not. The blog post of which I linked to above reads: “This increase in winter tick is a consequence of the changing climate, resulting in milder winters and creating a greater opportunity for tick survival.”

One of the problems with making this statement is that there are not enough studies done on winter ticks to be able to fully understand the survival rates and conditions. While fish and wildlife biologists, along with millions of climate change religious fanatics, are nothing more than echo chambers of what he said-she said, hand selected information, most of which is based on scientism (outcome based) and void of real science (truth), is used to prop up narratives and is rooted in unprovable propaganda.

Currently, there are just as many, perhaps even more, pieces of scholarship that tell us that “climate” really is not a strong enough factor to consider in tick survival. (But, as I say, Don’t go look!)

The echo chambers constantly repeat the tale that harsh winters (this from the standpoint of we don’t have harsh winters anymore, which is bunkum) will kill off ticks that cause mortality in moose. Harsh winters have come and gone and returned again, the same way they always have. Those who choose to believe false data about temperature changes, wrongly believe that normal cold winters (if we still had them, wink-wink) would take care of the tick problem. They fail to understand tick mortality and the relationship to temperatures and climate, even suggesting they don’t really understand the life cycle of the moose tick.

Consider the following…if at all possible. If Climate Change is a real factor (There is natural climate change. There is NOT man-caused climate change…at least not in the way it is being sold to the public.) and if Maine is indicative of the rest of the world, it has seen a minuscule increase in average year round temperature (perhaps a half a degree) in the past few decades, then which scenario do you think would have the most influence on tick proliferation and mortality – a temperature change of half a degree over several decades, or an increase in moose populations, directly proportional to the increase in ticks, of say 50% or more over the same period of time?

Because the political persuasion of Climate Change Religion has so poisoned the minds of good men, perhaps then the only hope will be some changes made to moose management that is secondary, or worse, to counter the invasion of Scientism.

If we read further on at the MDIFW blog, we can read the following: “With parasites and disease, higher moose population leads to greater chance of transfer, ultimately causing more death. Since calves have two critical periods in their lives to ensure survival, it is of high priority for MDIFW to find ways to help improve moose health. For this reason, the agency is considering methods of selectively lowering the moose population in certain parts of the state to decrease the chance for parasite and disease transfer, eventually leading to a healthier and higher quality population.”

What is extremely interesting in this approach is that this is something I have been harping at for years now, i.e. that we should recognize those factors that influence wildlife that we have no ability to control and focus on those things that we can. DUH!

As much as anyone wants to harp on Climate Change, there’s nothing we can do about it, short of an all out war on the worlds’ human population. Some believe a tax on carbon will do the job. I might suggest that first we take a look at the historic raping of the public of taxes for such things as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Education, etc. and do an honest assessment as to the status of those billion dollar (in taxes) programs and the yield on investment. Yeah, I thought so.

So, we can’t change the climate…no, really, we CANNOT change the climate. We don’t even understand it or what influences it. How are we ever going to change it? Or do we want to?

A warming climate has historically always been followed by periods of prosperity, growth, ample food supplies, etc. Carbon dioxide is an important and necessary component to our own health and prosperity.

If the climate in Maine is changing so much, as we are led to believe, that moose ticks are growing by the trillions as a result, then it only makes sense, as we are also told, that the southern fringe of natural moose habitat would be migrating north, and along with it the northern fringe of the whitetail deer population would be expanding north along with the retreating moose.

We know that the opposite is true. Maine’s deer population is struggling to survive north of say the East and West highway of U.S. Route 2. We also know that moose are expanding into southern regions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. This is all opposing the theories of Climate Change and the false claim that moose ticks are increasing due to Climate Change.

It is of some relief to see that at least in Maine, moose biologists are willing to attempt something beyond crying over Climate Change to improve the health of the moose herd. With open minds and a return to real wildlife science, biologists will soon learn, as others have before them, that the ONLY way to mitigate moose ticks is to reduce the population.

Let’s get on with it and put an end to this needless suffering.

Photo by Albert Ladd

Share

Buy Em Guns, Send Them to Hunt, and Then What?

I was reading Bob Humphrey’s recent article about making this year “The Year of the Hunter.” As I have come to expect, Bob Humphrey, one of Maine’s better outdoor writers, is always full of words that are constructive and positive, something perhaps I should take a lesson in. However, I am too strong a realist to be drawn so far away that I would find myself showing up to a birthday party that has no balloons, ice cream, and a cake.

Mr. Humphrey laments of the continuing decline in hunter participation. We tend to superficially putter along with suggestions of how to increase hunter participation, with perhaps not putting enough focus on the balloons and the birthday cake.

All of the writer’s suggestions make a lot of sense: recruitment, mentorship, apprenticeship licenses, involvement in “R3 Program” (recruit, retain, reactivate), controlling social media, improved landowner relationships, joining deer conservation and advocacy groups, and basically speaking out about the positive aspects of hunting.

While Humphrey sort of casually mentions, “Since 1988, the Quality Deer Management Association has promoted “sustainable, high-quality deer populations, wildlife habitats and ethical hunting experiences through research, education, advocacy and hunter recruitment.”

There are many groups of all variety of make-up that “promote sustainable, high-quality deer populations,” but what does promote mean? Are these groups forming because state-funded government fish and game departments are incapable of sustaining high-quality deer populations? Don’t we need our fish and game departments to go beyond marketing a not-so-good product…with a straight face no doubt? Fish and game departments should be the leaders not the followers of advocacy groups.

All dressed up for the party, with invitation in hand, and all the supporting propaganda telling me what a great party this is going to be, arriving at the party and finding no cake and ice cream means I won’t be hanging around for long, and will become gun shy (sorry) to return again.

All states’ deer hunting problems are different. All states are suffering some degree of hunter loss. With a dwindling population of hunters (I would bet with continued hunter loss those retaining an interest are more serious about what they do and thus will seek out those places where they have the best chance a bagging a “trophy.”), competition becomes real and it is a no-brainer that if the party has no cake and ice cream, the interest will continue to decline and Maine is removed from consideration as a destination hunting ground and interest within the state continues to shrink.

Yes, there are other problems too that contribute to the lack of interest, but an unsustainable, poor-quality deer population makes all other “recruitment, retentions, reactivation” efforts a bit of a futile effort.

People in Maine are a bit dishonestly led to believe that the deer population is “healthy” and that while numbers may not be at peak levels, there are plenty of deer to go around. It is when we honestly examine where the deer are concentrated we realize the majority of geographic and huntable areas, have deer densities that make it, let’s say, a poor product that is very difficult to promote “retention, recruitment, and reactivation.”

Back in October, I commented on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) efforts at promoting “R3” by recruiting some greenhorns and sticking them in a ground blind in the middle of a game preserve. Oddly enough, from a state that is not exactly all in with “canned hunting” they use canned hunting in an attempt to recruit new hunters. The question I asked is why didn’t the MDIFW put them in places where the rest of us are forced to hunt? The answer is simple. Sitting in a blind for hours on end seeing nothing, is like going to a birthday party with no cake and ice cream. Are you getting my point here?

Not that we should give up all the efforts that Mr. Humphrey and others have suggested to recruit more hunters, but retention and reactivation is going to be a very big task to accomplish unless those huntable regions of Maine grow more deer.

So, the big and obvious question is how do we grow more deer in Maine’s huntable and deerless regions? Let’s first begin with what we shouldn’t do. We shouldn’t use terrible excuses, like Climate Change and claiming there’s just as many deer now as there used to be – there may be but they aren’t where they can be hunted. If a warming climate, the most favorite of all excuses, was real, then Maine deer regions to the north would be seeing deer growth as the winters become less severe and the forests change. The news is they are not.

We need to work even harder with landowners, even the big ones, to protect deer wintering areas. But large predators growing at unchecked rates is a real problem. While some efforts have been undertaken to reduce coyote/wolf populations, more effort needs to be done. We eat deer. We don’t eat coyotes…at least not yet.

At the same time, serious efforts need to be taken to cut the black bear population down to “healthy” levels – healthy for the bears and healthy for deer. Bears are killing fawns soon after the fawning season, seriously cutting into fawn recruitment, making sustainable deer populations impossible.

The Maine Legislature needs to stop dawdling and caving to special interest groups, like guides and outfitters, and do what is best for all game populations, not necessarily bank accounts.

Consider what has changed since deer populations in many parts of the state have dwindled. In those same regions, black bear populations are growing out of control, coyote/wolf numbers are at all time highs, and moose numbers remain strong. Why is it that all that can be seen is finding fault with the Climate?

I don’t know of any hunters who seriously want to see the Big Woods of northern Maine teeming with deer. However, an increase from 1-3 deer per square mile, to 2-5 deer per square mile or even 3-6 might make a huge difference in accomplishing the 3 “Rs.”

If Maine is going to push this recruitment, retention, and reactivation thing, let’s lay the groundwork first to make sure we got the cake and ice cream. It sure would make all that work a lot easier. Who knows, if Maine had a terrific deer product to market…if you build it they will come?

Share

Hasn’t SAM Squandered Their Right to be Taken Seriously on Gun Rights?

The boogie man is coming to get you!! That is the message I get from reading a letter penned by the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), published on their Facebook page. (Note: I don’t have a link to that URL because I refuse to participate at any level with the totalitarian stiff necks (totalitarians) at Facebook. I was sent a copy of the letter.)

It doesn’t matter all that much whether what the executive director writes is true. What makes it difficult to swallow is his hypocrisy as well as ignorance. I say ignorance because I guess it would be better to be seen as ignorant that smart enough to know how two-faced you might be and yet pretend you are in the clear. Ignorance can be corrected…but one must be willing.

This attack on SAM, more specifically the executive director of whom I have called for his resignation, is because of efforts by SAM, the Maine Chapter of the NRA, and Gun Owner’s of Maine, crawling in bed with the very “progressives” that are being attacked by the executive director for seeking to confiscate guns.

Trahan writes: “National and State Progressive groups, many hostile (sic) to firearm rights, fueled by seething anger, toward our President are energized, organized and better funded than any time in history.”

I wonder if the executive director has given much thought to the idea that perhaps also fueling these bad-ass “progressives” was SAM’s, the NRA’s, and GoM’s, work to destroy Maine citizens’ constitutional rights when they created an unconstitutional “Red Flag” gun confiscation act? It would seem to me that “progressives” like Bloomberg, Soros, Collins, and Trahan would be emboldened to know that the largest supporter of gun rights in the state willingly squandered what little power they had left to save our gun rights. This action by these so-called gun rights groups sure kicked the door open, and in essence rolled out the red carpet for a formal invitation to come and complete the gun rights destruction SAM, NRA, and GoM started.

I could have said I told you so but would SAM have listened? NOPE! They didn’t listen when so many of their members wanted to know what in the hell was going on with not only supporting “Red Flag” laws but writing one of their own.

What is laughable is that the executive director writes in his letter: “In the not too distant past, as Mayor of New York he (Bloomberg) instituted the “stop and frisk” policy that allowed officers to stop city residents and search them randomly for weapons.”

So tell us, Mr. Executive Director, how is Michael Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” policy so “unconstitutional,” when your own order to confiscate the guns of any considered “a danger” (from whose perspective? Yours, Bloomberg’s, Soros’) so warm and cuddly?

The executive director suggests that the “only thing” we (We? Does he mean himself? I hope not.) can do is “educate ourselves and our friends.” And what is it we are going to teach them? Maybe he means those bad-ass “progressives” who want your hard earned money to steal away our rights, while he pitches his own readers for money.

Some might get this entire attack on the executive director as coming from a “progressive.” Sorry! Such is far from the case. You see, I don’t like to dress myself up to be one of those phony republicans or democrats, or any other fake label. I like my freedom. I like to be left alone. I like to be able to make my own choices including those of gun ownership. I don’t need people like the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, telling me; “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to take you guns. We’ll sort it out later. In the meantime, prison ain’t so bad.”

Nope! I have a right to arm myself, if I choose. Nobody is going to change that. And yes, David Trahan has a right to craft any totalitarian law he sees fit – constitution is damned. However, it is hypocritical ignorance to tell Maine citizens it’s raining out (as he pisses on your boots) and then turns around and somehow tries to make out that Bloomberg and Soros and bad-ass progressives that have come to take your guns away.

I wonder if SAM, the NRA, or GoM even thought about the “trickle down” effect of the clumpy sewer they stirred up; that it would jump right back up and bite them square in the face?

I don’t think so.

If you cherish real gun rights, dump the executive director of SAM and then, with some straight forward intestinal fortitude, tell Bloomberg and Soros to go to hell.

Share

Deer Yards and Recreational Trails

Note: The below article has been submitted to the Bethel Citizen, a local newsprint publication and subsidiary of the Lewiston Sun Journal (Sun Media Group). It is intended as an open letter to the State of Maine, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Legislature, and any and all groups that develop land and in particular recreational trails.

Maine’s Trails Need Consideration for Wildlife

Open Air with Tom Remington

The Bethel, Maine area has become one of the fastest growing areas when it comes to the use and development of recreational trails. With little or no guidelines to develop, expand, or limit use, perhaps now is a better time than later to closely examine the effects of increased use by people and pets on trails throughout the year.

Trails for recreation are a great thing. As cultural demands change, I have watched as old logging roads, railroad beds, footpaths, hiking trails, snowmobile and ATV trails, etc., have been upgraded and are maintained for increased traffic far beyond foot traffic alone. The Western Maine area, which includes Bethel, at present has the most recreational trails available than at any other time in history.

With the development of paths, capable of moving more and different forms of recreation to greater distances, in less time, with manual and motorized transportation devices, with this come direct threats to our wildlife. We don’t always think about how our presence and activities can negatively effect habitat.

If we take a look at the whitetail deer population and how their biological cycles go allowing them to survive long winters in Maine, then perhaps we can see a definite need for considerations in locating trails, size of trails, and intended uses.

During the winter months, the whitetail deer in Maine, move into what our biologists at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) call Deer Wintering Areas (DWA). Most don’t realize that the Bethel region is home to a few of these DWAs, with one that used to be one of the state’s largest located near the Bethel Airport and within land which is now part of the Bingham Forest Park.

When deer enter Deer Wintering Areas (typically at the end of November into mid-December depending on weather conditions), their metabolism begins to slow. This is a necessary and natural adaptation that allows deer to conserve energy needed to stay warm and survive. This approximate 100-day period, where deer eat very little and what they do consume is more to fill a void than provide nutrition, is an extremely critical time.

It is during these mid-winter days, that deer are at their most vulnerable stage of existence. Any disturbances within these DWAs can result in near immediate death.

I have written in the past about concerns that I have with DIFW offering late season deer hunting opportunities for concern that deer that have already begun to “yard up” will be unnecessarily stressed by the presence of hunters. I also have concerns about when and where people can “shed hunt” (search of antlers) because efforts can stress deer and other wildlife during critical times.

Biologists at DIFW repeatedly echo that the biggest obstacle in efforts to maintain and manage healthy levels of whitetail deer is destruction/loss of habitat.

With all of this in mind, it would seem but only reasonable and responsible that all efforts to seek advice and guidelines be sought from professionals BEFORE construction or expansion of recreational trails. This is far better than waiting for the strong arm of the “law” to come down on all of us.

It’s not just a trail. Consideration must be taken as to the location of a trail and just as important, what types of use are intended. For example, a small walking path through the middle of a DWA, while I would strongly urge that no trail be built going through any DWA, would seem less stressful on deer than motorized recreational devices that would frighten and cause deer to run away, using up valuable energy to stay alive. Any and all activity penetrating a DWA is undue deadly stress and can be easily prevented.

As trails are developed, upgraded, and advertised for use, with it comes increased use. This use always includes those who want to go outside on trails with their pets. A combination of people, noise, and ambitious dogs looking to bark at and chase (they are dogs after all) yarded up deer, can be catastrophic.

I would implore all who are looking to create and/or expand new or existing trails anywhere, first seek help from the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The DIFW has biologists who can help locate DWAs and advise on the best possible ways of getting where you would like your trials to go with the least chance of wildlife and ecosystem disturbances.

This is in no way intended to speak negatively against recreational trails, only to request that all trails be done in the best possible way for ALL.

Share

Continuing Maine’s Secret Moose Study

Once again we get trickles of information from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) about their ongoing moose study. Did you know that MDIFW has been conducting a moose study for the past 6 years? Did you know they are or were (who knows, it’s secret I guess) in the midst of a deer study? More than likely you don’t know about these, but, if you do, you know very little about it, as do I.

It seems to me that the pattern that is in operation is that when it becomes necessary to defend actions at the department and the defense is based on “Climate Change” (global warming) they roll out some sanitized vague report that might casually mention an item here or there of some of their findings….or not.

According to this token report, MDIFW’s head moose biologist says that in the length of time of the moose study, 500 moose have been collared. And what have tax payers been informed about during this time?

The Maine moose biologist in charge says that putting collars on 500 moose is, “a pretty big deal and provides us with a tremendous amount of information.”

When you consider how important many in the State of Maine think the moose is to the state’s economy and brand, MDIFW would share a bit more information than they do. When information is withheld, we are left with only guesses and assumptions. I have to assume results of their studies aren’t showing the hoped-for outcome that supports their incorrect theories that are based on Global Warming Climate Change.

Aren’t license fees now paying more money specifically for someone assigned to “educate” and share information about events at MDIFW?

In the last 3 months, we know (from MDIFW website) that there was an ATV crash, a canoe tipped over, there’s a biased, outcome-based furbearer study, some Game Warden news, MDIFW needs help finding Chronic Wasting Disease, Climate Change is changing things (so they choose to believe), and fishing laws are available. What about the piping plover? Gasp! We’re all gonna die!!!!

Did you know Maine had a moose hunt? A deer hunt? A bear hunt? Yeah, I know. Shhhhh! Some environmentalist might not like to hear about that. Let’s see, Environmentalists typically don’t contribute a dime to wildlife management, but seem to get the most attention. Is this a tactic to get general taxation money to fund fish and game so Environmentalism can completely take over the department? Seems that way.

Share

Maine: Increasing Game Harvests. All Talk

According to Maine outdoor writer George Smith, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is “talking” about how to increase game harvests across parts of the state on some of the game species. As the Toby Keith country musician’s lyrics go, “…a little less talk and a lot more action.”

According to Smith, the Maine Guides are objecting to any increase in bear harvest bag limits (they think they own the bear hunt.) Which reminds me of a joke I once heard. A man died and went to heaven. While standing in line waiting to get his instructions from St. Peter, he kept hearing Peter telling people things like, “You are in room 12. Go down this hall, but when you go by room 1, be very, very quiet.” Peter told this to everyone in line. When the man got there, he asked Peter why he had to be quiet when he passed room 1. Peter answered, “Room 1 is where all the politicians Maine Guides are. They think they are the only ones up here.”

I guess we should hold out some level of hope that “talking” about what to do about increasing harvest of certain game animals, will lead to positive change. But if history continues to repeat itself, don’t expect change.

Share

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

Deer Hunting: When Bad Becomes the Normal

I was reading a Bangor Daily News article late last night and I read a couple of things that I thought I would like to comment on.

The tone of the article seemed to want to reflect a bit of braggadocio about how terrific the Maine deer harvest was this year and how it exceeded the last ten year average.

With it in mind that “statistics prove that statistics can prove anything,” with a few mirrors and a bit of smoke, comparing a deer harvest to the ten worst years ever in Maine’s deer hunting history, would make a slight increase in numbers appear much better than it really is.

The ten-year average deer harvest, from 2009-2018, is 22,709. In the news article, comparing this year’s harvest of 28,317 to this ten-year average, makes it appear as though the Maine woods are teeming with deer. As a matter of fact the article states that Maine’s head deer biologist seems to believe that, “…the high number of deer taken was a product of favorable weather and a thriving deer herd…” Compared to what? The worst of the worst, evidently.

If we were to examine the ten-year average from 1999-2008, we find an average deer harvest of 27,465, putting this year’s harvest at about the ten-year average of 1999-2008, which is still below what Maine hunters used to experience before social pressures dictated deer management.

By comparison, if we examine the best 20-year deer harvests, dating back to 1964, we find that average to be 33,693, with the highest harvest coming in 1968 at 41,080. Geez! That’s ONLY 50 years ago!!

It should be noted that the tenth highest deer harvest during that 50-year span happened last year – 2018 when the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife decided, for some unexplained reason, to issues the most “Any-Deer Permits” ever – in excess of 48,000 of them. Is it any wonder the harvest was so high?

Maine meanders along appeasing most of the hunters and fooling a few with their magical words about a “thriving” deer herd, but the truth is, all Maine needs is one or two more “severe” winters (coming at a time when the managers promote global warming) and the deer herd will be gone.

The new normal is to compare deer harvest to the absolute worst so reality is overlook. Maine’s deer herd is NOT “thriving.” It is sustaining in some regions and continuing to drop in others.

Wouldn’t it be much better for deer management if a bit of honesty and a focus on reality is what drives it?

Share

Fake Eastern Gray Wolves and Destruction of a Perfectly Good Wolf Species

In an article published on the Maine Wolf Coalition’s website over a year ago, it states that in 2006 a trapper killed a 107-lb “eastern/gray” wolf. The Maine Wolf Coalition (MWC), whose stated goal is the “recovery” of wolves in Maine (evidently they have no preference as to what species or hybridized mix of canine is “recovered”), improperly tells its readers that the animal, whose information they attribute to, was a male eastern and gray wolf mixture.

An honest assessment of the piece of “scholarship” (study) “suggests” that the animal in question, killed south of the St. Lawrence River, was some kind of, at least, partly domesticated hybrid of some canine that fed mostly on livestock and pets.

But here’s the real crime in all of this dog perversion and demands to “recover” wolves, not just in Maine, but anywhere. Those supporting “wolf recovery” are willing, either through ignorance of animal obsession, or both, especially dogs, to totally destroy the actual gray wolf species to get some kind of wild dog roaming about the woods. This makes no sense and presents a good case to support the claim of insanity.

It has already been proven, many times, that the wild canines that inhabit anywhere in the Lower United States, is not a pure wolf but some add-mixture of wild and domestic dogs/canines. Dog lovers then want these hybrid canines to be labeled some kind of wolf, i.e. red, Mexican, etc. So long as the criminals in Government continue to protect these disease-riddled hybrid dogs, they are contributing to the destruction of the actual species. Aren’t there laws that are supposed to prohibit such actions and behaviors?

According to an article found in Deer and Deer Hunting (online), wolves in certain counties of Wisconsin now are responsible for killing more deer than gun hunters do.

In Maine, the deer herd in most of the state, geographically speaking, is in terrible condition. Northern Maine is lucky to find deer numbers that approach 2 or 3 animals per square mile. Poor management of moose has caused North America’s largest ungulate to suffer from winter ticks due to uncontrolled growth in the population. Government officials will claim that moose and deer do not compete with each other but there is little explanation as to why, when there are lots of moose there are few deer.

Maine’s black bear population is out of control and the Legislature, in their incompetence and ignorance, refuse to do anything sensible about the problem. In the meantime, an overgrown population of bears is destroying the deer herd, along with packs of hybrid wild canines, deer have little chance. And, with all this, a group wants “wolves” recovered. NUTS!!!!

The insanity in all this is that groups like the Maine Wolf Coalition want what they call wolves “recovered” clearly at the expense of all else. If these groups cared about the real wolf, they would be looking at destroying and preventing the spread of these hybrid canines. But they are not. They just want some kind of dog they can call a wolf.

Among this insanity, people work feverishly to protect large predators, most of which are direct competitors with humans in the food chain. These predator protectors wrongfully make claim that people don’t need to hunt to eat. They obviously have never lived under conditions where people still need to hunt for food. Besides, even if people didn’t NEED to hunt for food, it is insanity to suggest protecting disease-spreading animals that directly remove food from the mouths of people. It’s as insane as supplementing gasoline by destroying a perfectly good food source.

Wolves have their place in wilderness settings. They do not belong in human-settled landscapes because of public safety, health, food competition, and the actual destruction of the wolf species.

In America there are so many domestic dogs…I mean we are talking millions and millions of them, with millions running unleashed and cross breeding with any other wild or semi-wild canine (dog). The result is a mongrel dog worth little to a society, a direct threat to wild canines – wolves and coyotes. To claim this hybrid mixture as worthy of protection, is insane; it is a knife to our own throats.

If Americans want wolves and coyotes, real ones, on their landscape, then domestic dogs need to be drastically reduced or serious penalties levied against anyone who allows their pet dogs to run free.

What do you think will happen?

Share

Hypocritical Ignorance and Public Lands

Lands supposedly bought and paid for with the money extorted from the public taxpayer, offering tribute in order to avoid imprisonment from the king and his men, we have been led to believe that when such actions happen, the lands should be widely left open and accessible to all those wishing to enjoy it. That is, after all, how socialism works?

Recently, the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), wrote a column in a Maine newspaper explaining, in his opinion, that should the Maine Legislature, being strong-armed by environmentalists and animal rights groups to limit use and access to public lands by hunting, fishing, and trapping, could result in a reduction in support for the Land for Maine’s Future program designed to protect lands for everyone to enjoy.

While an honest and not necessarily bright person can understand that any leader of a special interest group would go to bat to protect the interests of those they might represent, in this case members of SAM, nowhere in the executive director’s article did I read that SAM intended to fight against environmentalists and animal rights groups who want to limit hunters, trappers, and fishermen, in order to limit use and access to any and all others.

As Maine has come to expect, such actions are typically followed by ignorant and hypocritical screeds by members of the environmental and animal rights groups.

In one such invective, we read how it is the hunters, trappers, and fishermen who are putting the Land for Maine’s Future in jeopardy because SAM wants to protect access and use to the same degree as all other extorted taxpayers. This isn’t the case in this rebuttal.

The author, who most of Maine realizes hates hunters, trappers, and fishermen and devotes much of his time to destroy any and all of that strong and important heritage, all in the name of promoting his agendas at the cost of limiting any and all others. This it totalitarian in nature and exemplifies the foundation of Environmentalism and Animal Rights.

The author writes: “Why should the people of Maine be forced to subsidize and accept life-endangering private activities that many do not approve of in order to preserve the land for the public?”

Perhaps this should be answered with another question. Why should the people of Maine be forced to subsidize and accept the agenda’s of those who want to limit use and access to public lands for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting their special interest agendas?

Taxpayers need to decide which approach is better: to leave public land open for all, or allow the richest, big-mouthed special interest groups to demand and get exclusive and/or limited access?

In general, most who participate in hunting, fishing, and trapping, particularly on public lands, do not have hidden or open agendas geared at stopping or limiting the activities of others and/or their special interest groups. Quite the contrary. Simply seeking to protect sportsman’s access to public land, fails the straight-face test of honesty when attempting to make SAM out to be exclusive users of public lands.

The author also asks: “Why should those who want to sell their land to the state for wildlife protection purposes be prohibited from doing so?” They shouldn’t and aren’t. If any landowners are considering gifting or selling land to The Land for Maine’s Future program, they should have understanding as to how the program works, as has been designed and amended by the voters of the state. If the land owner finds these designs unacceptable, there are other options available to any land owner that would like to lock up their land and exclude any and all special interest groups…including environmental and animal rights groups or hunting, trapping, and fishing.

In their own ignorance, many want to extol the benefits of living in what they believe is a democratic society, until such time as such democracy flies up their face. The system, as crooked as it is, is available for anyone to exploit and convince the voters to support their special interest. When that system won’t work for the totalitarian, their only other recourse is to turn to the media seeking publication of their hypocritical ignorance.

Proverbs 17:28 KJV – “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”

Share