October 25, 2020

Proposed Hunting Rule Changes “Don’t Need to be Logical”

INDEED!!!

Yesterday I was reading Gerry Lavigne’s article that was published by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine concerning one man’s proposals for rule changes dealing with coyotes and bears. Lavigne twice makes the statement that rule proposals by ignorant citizens (my words, not his) “need not be logical.” He was right.

A couple of issues jumped out at me which exemplify the ignorance associated with emotional and irrational actions by those who can’t stand hunting, fishing, and trapping.

One of the petitions being forced onto the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) demands that feral, hybrid canines that heavily populate the Maine landscape, spreading diseases and destroying other species, be classified as a distinct species. The petitioner then intends to submit that new species of nasty half-wild dog to the authorities also demanding protection as an endangered species. Ignorance abounds!

Canines are canines and will interbreed when any opportunity presents itself. What “protects” certain canine species, such as coyotes and wolves, is separation. Does this petitioner even ask why the wild dogs roaming Maine’s landscape are an ad mixture of canines, including domestic dogs? My, my! We couldn’t allow any intelligent and factual information enter discussions about wildlife management.

The biggest threat to wild canine species is overpopulation. The petitioner is a self-anointed wolf worshiper and founder of Maine Wolf Coalition. He believes wolves inhabit the Maine landscape. Sorry. They do not. What inhabits the Maine landscape is a “Heinz 57” mongrelized semi-wild dog…a mixture that is the result of allowing the canine predators to flourish as well as uncontrolled domestic dogs.

Coyotes and wolves have a place in the wild…key word being wild. They do NOT belong is human-settled landscapes. If anyone is so fired up about protecting actual coyotes and wolves, they should be doing everything in their power to prevent the forcing of these canine species into shared landscapes. Interbreeding will undoubtedly occur. History and science proves that.

This illogical petitioner is asking the MDIFW to stop the killing of Maine’s overgrown population of coyotes in order to “protect” Maine’s wolves. Maine doesn’t have wolves. The petitioner wants the wild dogs in the Pine Tree state reclassified creating a species that needs protection…while calling the dogs wolves.

Certainly this circular thinking is not only illogical, it’s insane.

Globally, idiots are screaming for millions of wolves to have free run everywhere…including your back yard. They are demanding protection of the diseased critter because they lack any knowledge about the habits of the animals and the real dangers associated with honest protections of a species. In addition, these irrational, emotional haters of hunting and trapping simply just want to end the long held tradition.

Coyotes are a direct competitor of the wolf. You simply cannot expect thousands of coyotes and wolves (assuming they are actual species) to coexist (forced into the same habitat) and still expect that the species would be protected. It’s impossible. If anyone was actually serious about protecting “grey wolves” in Maine, they would be demanding a serious reduction of coyotes, if not an extirpation of them in order to make room for wolves.

This is all just insanity.

Share

Profound? Maine Moose Biologist Theorizes Fewer Moose Means Fewer Deadly Winter Ticks

For at least a decade I have been beating a drum that Global Warming is NOT the cause of Maine’s – and other state’s – increase in the winter tick which is killing off the moose population – a natural occurrence. My proclamation has been that if the state would reduce the moose population to a sensible level, one that actually meets the real “carrying capacity” of the habitat, we would, in turn, see the tick population decrease and result in a healthier bunch of moose.

After all these years, according to the Portland Press Herald, Maine’s lead moose biologist is suggesting a “study” to prove or disprove his thesis that fewer moose would make for fewer ticks and a healthier moose population.

WOW! PROFOUND!

Here are some issues of which I have concerns about. First, the proposal is to conduct the study within half a hunting zone…District 4. Is this a large enough study area to achieve viable data to prove or disprove anything?

Second, can ANY study be legitimate if those conducting the study are still so deeply mired in the nonsense that ticks have increased due to a warming planet? I know the answer to that question…NO!

Third, it is getting to the point that moose study after moose study has resulted in conclusions that we have already known. Collaring of moose in two general regions of Maine has shown mortality rates for the animals. The data seem to indicate that the moose population is continuing to decline and it is believed that declination is due to the winter tick…mainly that tick mortality on moose is destroying the moose calf survivability rate.

Terrific! So, why doesn’t somebody begin conducting some real studies of the winter tick? It is terrible science to continue with more moose studies about ticks when nobody knows, or refuses to understand, about the winter tick. Any real tick studies are old. All new tick “studies” are nothing more than offering lip service about the tick based on cherry picked pieces of data from ancient tick studies that conveniently fit the modern narrative of Global Warming. This kind of work is either criminal or just plain lazy ignorance.

The senseless beating of a dead horse about global warming just isn’t getting the job done because it is promoting a false thesis, unprovable and extremely political. Every study that I have read about the winter tick disproves any theory about its growth due to “Global Warming.” Ticks grow and proliferate in regions of cold much farther north than Maine and much farther south. The winter tick, Dermacentor albipictus, is prolific all over the world, seemingly viable in most any climate…hot, dry, wet, etc. Calling for “old fashioned” winters in Maine will do nothing to mitigate the tick problem. Without real knowledge about the tick, how can an honest study be conducted on the effects of the tick on moose by only examining and tracking the moose?

I would suppose that after six years of moose studies, to finally reach a point where one biologist proposes a theory about the relationship between moose numbers and ticks should be examined, is a good thing. My concerns I have just listed, which are substantial, leaves us, before any study has begun, wondering of what value any data collected would have.

One has to even wonder if these new studies are simply just another way to promote the man-controlled thesis of Global Warming?

Share

Maine Has Black Bears…And a Few Fools

When I was a very young boy, I recall one time going to the grocery store with my mother. While there, I witnessed another young boy, perhaps a year or two younger than me (4 or 6), throw himself to the floor of the store, screaming, crying and eventually banging his head against the floor, in a fit of uncontrolled rage, simply because he wanted something on the shelf his mother would not let him have.

Quietly, the mom pushed her cart to the front of the store, spoke briefly with the cashier, left her partially-filled cart for when she intended to return, and dragged the boy outside and then…I don’t know what happened. I’m guessing what happened might have been pretty close to what my mother said to me when I asked her what the mom was going to do. Her response went something like: If you ever do that, you may not ever live long enough to see your next birthday.

Things have changed, and depending on one’s perspective, not for the better.

Let’s shift up gears for a moment and examine the acts of adults – perhaps those that didn’t fully grow up from the days of temper tantrums. These days some adults mostly resemble the actions of the 4-year-old screaming, banging his head, and demanding his own way.

Most adults love to extol the wonders of what they call democracy…but only when it is beneficial to prop up an ideology and the narrative that goes along with it. Most really cannot comprehend what a democracy is but love it when it works for them. What a selfish society we have crafted.

The American Governments, federal and state, misrepresent to the citizen slaves that they have certain “rights” (actually privileges of which can be taken away as easily as given out), among them the “right to petition the state.”

This can work well in a civilized society that isn’t manipulated into little locust totalitarians, the likes of which are as the 4-year-old banging his head and demanding his way. Regardless, the spoiled totalitarian, brought up under the banner of repetitive petitioning, goes about his or her demonstrations with the belief that regardless of what the majority have spoken in their “democratic” society, they will get what they want one way or another.

So what’s wrong with that you might ask? Well, nothing, actually. It is the system that has been created and we are subjected to all of its bad points and very few good ones. For me, it’s all about the approach and methodology used in demanding one’s way.

Maine has weathered two anti-hunting bear referendums within the past 16 years. Both times, the voters of Maine have said they don’t want little spoiled totalitarians telling those that are paid to manage the state’s wildlife, how to do it. But that doesn’t stop the little spoiled totalitarians.

Many of those spoiled totalitarians simply do not approve of hunting, fishing, trapping…basically any kind of what they might call consumptive use of wildlife and natural resources. That’s fine. It’s their uncontrolled desire to force all others to accept and abide by their political ideals, etc. Regardless as to whether years of wildlife science and management has proven that consumptive use of natural resources, when done responsibly, is a major benefit to the people and to the wildlife, spoiled totalitarian anti hunters, incapable of mounting an actual provable scientific basis for demanding an end to hunting, fishing, and trapping, have no other alternative than to resort of lying and playing on the emotions of ignorant people.

In the second of the two bear hunting referendums that Maine residents and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) endured, the MDIFW did a very respectable job of hitting the pavement to educate voters that due to the very large bear population in the state, the department needs every tool and resource it can to try to keep the population at a safe and healthy level. One of those tools that still remains a necessity in that effort, is placing baits for hunters to hunt over. It’s not how I would personally choose to bear hunt, but I understand the need to reduce the number of bears and I would never attempt to prevent anyone from participating in a legal hunting activity simply to force them to accept my ideology. That is selfish, childish, and actions of a fool.

The overwhelming majority of bears taken during the hunting and trapping seasons are done so with the use of bait. Baiting bears may not be the weapon of choice in controlling bear numbers, but until such time as the MDIFW is able to find another way of controlling bears, the managers in Augusta have continued to promote the need for this harvest tool.

Without baiting bears, harvest numbers, more than likely, would be reduced by at least half, adding even more and more bears to forests and fields that would indeed increase the already troublesome bear and human encounters that pose a threat to human safety.

Recently I read yet another Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper from one of those loud-mouthed, spoiled totalitarians who hates anything he doesn’t agree with…including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

If this man had his way, all hunting, fishing, and trapping would end and he would import wolves, mountain lions, and probably saber-toothed tigers.

He is one of those totalitarians who can’t seem to find real science to support his agenda and so he relies on the echo-chambers of the scientismist’s to promote false, outcome-based, bought and paid for, unprovable theories to promote his agenda to put an end to bear hunting and other pet projects.

His latest “petition” to the State of Maine, to change the rules of bear hunting, would, over a 10-year period of time, outlaw what he has now chosen to call bear “feeding” instead of calling it what it really is…which is bear baiting as part of the necessary process to reduce bear populations.

It appears the reason for petitioner’s upside down and backwards approach to lying to the public about bears and wildlife science, surrounds around the false, outcome-based, over-simplified, study, done in extremely general terms with no specificity in the study that is used as a broad, sweeping, brush stroke across all species, that when there is ample “food” available for wildlife, it causes those species to reproduce at higher than “normal” rates. Even to the effect that such dynamics might exist, there is no science that indicates, because it is near impossible to do, what, if any, the rate of increase in reproduction would be.

Evidently, the author of the petition now believes that if he calls bear baiting, bear feeding, it somehow has a different affect on the bears and their population, but more importantly it probably will have a false affect on public opinion and I’m sure that is what he is hoping to achieve.

In his Letter to the Editor, the author claims that bears in Maine now exceed the “natural carrying capacity” by 10,000 bears, but offers no information as to what this claim is based on. Carrying capacity, a complex algorithm to determine how many of any species of wildlife is desired by wildlife managers to live within any given habitat and/or ecosystem, cannot be implemented in shear numbers. It’s far to sophisticated which can become extremely troublesome.

No matter the complexity of carrying capacities, the petitioner blames the fact that his claim of 10,000 too many bears is the fault of MDIFW, bear hunters, and guides who use “food” for attracting bears for hunting.

The fact that actual bear baiting involves a very small comparative geographic region, including lots of bear habitat, that any “feeding” of bears for hunting purposes is so negligible it is not thought to have any real effect on the state’s bear population. To even suggest placing baits within strategic hunting locations would “feed” enough of the estimated 50,000 bears to effect bear reproduction is actually quite a silly supposition and certainly any such suggestion is not, and cannot be supported by actual science.

This totalitarian, in his insistent ignorance, states matter of factly: “Feeding bears produces more bears. This is the science.” He then demands an end to the state’s “bear feeding program.”

Only a fool, and there are too many of them, would claim that feeding bears produces more bears and that it is proven science. It is not. It is not as simple as that. One of the most difficult aspects of managing wildlife is the fact that everything about what we like to call an ecosystem is constantly changing with almost none of the changing things something that we, as managers, can control. All we really have at our disposal are well-planned, science-based hunting seasons to control populations. Even those proved problematic at times.

At best, our wildlife managers try to figure out how many of any game species there are and then to go about doing what is needed to keep those populations under control for the health of the species and for public safety. I don’t very often let the MDIFW off without having my say, but right now, I agree with them that they NEED to be able to use baiting bears to control the population. I also think that if the MDIFW believed baiting bears was causing the population to grow, they would end the practice. They have repeatedly stated the need to kill more bears. I think they have other methods available to them but refuse to use them due to social demands…which is wrong on many counts. One might think a large group of biologists and wildlife managers have more collective knowledge about how bears reproduce than one disgruntled man.

If the bear population in Maine was so low, the managers would put an end to hunting and trapping them. They do this with any game species. I would support that move providing the MDIFW has the data to show the need. Right now, the MDIFW has the data to show more bears need to be harvested each season and “feeding” bears (use of bait) is not what is causing the bears to grow in numbers.

Give it rest already and let’s encourage the MDIFW to provide more bear hunting opportunities…the ONLY way to reduce those “10,000” bears.

Below is a copy of the suggested rule changes for bear baiting and bear hunting. I would encourage as many as possible to contact the MDIFW, as there is a comment period, and share your thoughts and ideas about this petition. Thanks!

Share

Maine Biologists Concerned About Ticks on Deer But Not on Moose

The more I watch the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologists operate, the more I just simply wonder what it is these people are learning, from whom are they learning it, and then I ask myself why I should have any confidence at all that any wildlife management plan is worth more than a pile of moose dung.

It doesn’t take a lot of brains to come to the conclusion that the deer population in Maine is mostly concentrated in the southern half of the state, and that southern sector could be pared down to a concentration of deer in the center of the state. It is understandable then that should the state wish to reduce the deer population, claiming it is now approaching 300,000 (I seriously doubt that), it needs to be done in areas where there are too many deer. That chore is impossible to achieve because there’s not enough open-to-hunting land in these high deer population areas – that’s why there’s too many deer. Increasing “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) is kind of like what happens when a feller decides to relieve himself while facing a brisk wind.

But, that doesn’t stop the biologists from trying.

I was reading an article in the Portland Press Herald this morning about how MDIFW intends to allot 109,890 ADPs. In 2018, the MDIFW set a new record in ADP allotments shelling out 84,745 ADPs. That year was the ONLY time in MDIFW history of utilizing ADPs to manage the deer population (since the mid-80s), that MDIFW actual met their objective of doe kills.

But is this really the issue here?

Let’s look at MDIFW’s previous statements about how it intends to manage wildlife now that we live in an environmentalist’s post-normal idiotic wildlife management era.

Not that long ago, MDIFW let the public know they no longer intend to count wildlife and use that knowledge as part of their wildlife management plans. Instead, their belief is that if they concentrate on a Kumbaya approach toward sensing the overall health of the herd, that will be good enough. No, really! That’s what they told us.

And yet, in the Portland Press Herald article, the head deer biologist said that the statewide deer population in Maine is close to 300,000. Evidently guessing at the deer population is good enough to justify to the citizens of Maine why the MDIFW intends to issue nearly 110,000 ADPs. Can’t they confirm their deer management goals and what needs to be done to control the population in places where you can’t hunt, by gaining a sense of the overall health of the deer herd? BALDERDASH!!!!!!!!

In the same news report, the same head deer biologist says that in 2018 when the MDIFW decided to issue 85,000 ADPs one of the reasons was because of concerns about “tick-borne diseases in southern and central Maine” in which biologists attribute to too many deer that can carry ticks that spread Lyme disease.

And yet, Maine’s moose population is being systematically decimated due to too many winter ticks. Now granted, I do have enough brains to understand that the ticks the deer carry, can spread a disease that is harmful to people and that, as far as we know, winter ticks on moose are not harmful to people but…but…but…what about the health of the herd? Who cares how many moose there are, even though moose populations are directly proportional to the number of winter ticks, just as biologists believe the number of deer is directly proportional to the spread of Lyme disease? And we have a wildlife management department that doesn’t think counting animals has much benefit?

Does it make any sense at all that wildlife managers are telling us one thing and seemingly doing something else, while at the same time can’t seem to figure out the correlation between deer and moose populations and ticks?

Why should we believe or trust to believe anything these people are doing and saying? Maybe it’s all driven by money? Maybe. Maybe not. Is there money to be made is caving in to the demands of environmentalists, telling the public one thing and doing another? Last time I checked, there are no licenses and fees required to become an environmentalist.

It’s all frustrating as hell.

Evidently a member of Maine’s IFW Advisory Council asked why the state didn’t return to an either sex hunting season, where any licensed hunter can shoot either sex of deer…like we used to and the way other states have done in attempts to reduce their deer numbers (evidently other states are still counting deer?). The answer was put this way. The head deer biologist said that if allotting 110,000 ADPs doesn’t take care of meeting the goal of doe kills, “other methods of thinning the herd will be considered.” This was followed by this highly scientific explanation (rolling the eyes here), “I think it would be hard to take a step back from that once you go in that direction.”

Please correct me if I’m wrong here as I’m not a certified deer biologist or a wildlife manager. I believe what the deer biologist/manager is saying is that should efforts taken in adjusting the issuing of ADPs doesn’t meet management goals, the choices would be better to sit on their asses and do nothing rather than “take a step back” to try something else. Who decided that trying another management strategy was taking a step back?” And why was this person hired as a head deer biologist? And why are any of them paid money for what they do?

If portions of southern and central Maine have too many deer (of course I still don’t know how the MDIFW knows this because they told us they don’t count wildlife anymore) then something ought to be done to reduce numbers. There is no reason that any of us should have much faith in deer manager’s decisions and the stupid excuses they use to justify their actions. Then when it’s all over, they can make up any story they want to cover their butts.

Is the MDIFW using this issuing of a ridiculous number of ADPs, hoping more hunters will apply for a permit, simply a money making scheme? One has to ask.

Some day, my dream will be that even though winter ticks don’t make humans sick, that we know of yet, biologists will figure out that reducing the number of moose will directly result in fewer ticks, just like with deer. So, instead of the woods littered with dead moose that suffered and died needlessly, why not let hunters take a few extra moose for meat in the freezer rather than feeding coyotes? I’m still trying to make sense out what these people do.

All of this reminds me of the time I took my car to the garage to remedy the skip in the engine. I checked back with the mechanic a few days later and he began to tell me all the parts and pieces he had replaced and still the motor had a skip.

Share

As Maine Attorney General, Mills Didn’t Think Quarantining Was Necessary Based on Science

Nearly six years ago a nurse returning from Sierra Leone where she treated Ebola patients, was asked by then Governor LePage to quarantine herself for 21 days so as not to put the public at risk of contracting Ebola.

Maine judge Charles LaVerdiere ruled that “the state has not met its burden to show why she’s a public health threat.”

He further ruled: “The State has not met its burden at this time to prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting Respondent’s movements to the degree requested is necessary to protect other individuals from the dangers of infection.”

Ironically enough, the Maine Attorney General at that time was Janet Mills, Maine’s current governor. Odd that she, representing the Governor who ordered the quarantine, presented arguments on behalf of the state and upon losing her case agreed with the judge calling his ruling a “good one.”

However, the most important take away from this case is that the attorney general said the reason the judge’s decision was a good one was because it, “should prevail based on medical science.”

As Maine’s governor, Mills has acted the lone dictator in her declaration of an emergency to place harsh restrictions on people’s movements and businesses that are not allowed to operate or those with very strict limitations. In hopes that after the first enforcement of her own rules, she would begin to ease up on her fascist positions, she has done the opposite and in some cases doubled down on the guidelines limiting the rights and freedoms of Maine citizens, all the while by not presenting “medical science” to definitively support her demands.

In addition, Mills implemented a 14-day quarantine for anyone entering the state who intended to stay.

While it seems that we are looking at different standards between her actions and comments of 2014 and hypocrisy in action, the one element in all of this is the governor’s hypocrisy and apparent disregard for good medical science that she claimed was the necessary factor in determining the quarantining fate of the nurse returning from Sierra Leone. Mills, it appears, has refused to offer scientific evidence to support her decisions to require masks in public places, social distancing, the closing of many businesses and limits and restrictions on those she has allowed to stay open, as well as her lack of easing those restrictions as many other states that are not “hot spots” have already done.

As one example of what is confusing to people and causing them to question the governor’s orders that anyone in public should wear face masks, President Trump’s pick of Anthony Fauci to head up Operation COVID-19, said in an interview that it is not scientifically proven a necessity that people should be wearing face masks in public. As a matter of fact, he says doing so probably puts people at greater risk of contracting diseases.

In 2014, Mills seemed to be a strong advocate in support of the judge’s ruling not to force a nurse to quarantine when returning from where she treated Ebola cases, because the judge stated that the state failed to present scientific evidence to support any need for quarantine. But now, as governor of Maine, she is not presenting scientific evidence, when asked, to support her dictatorial approach in dealing with Operation COVID-19.

This has angered many and as a result action has been taken to request the Maine Legislature to reconvene, under rules of the Maine Constitution, for the purpose of ousting the governor due to her violations against her authority under the laws of her declaration of an emergency.

Here is a copy of the letter from members of the Maine Legislature to President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of the Maine Legislature asking both houses to reconvene and the purpose for that.

May 2, 2020

President Troy Jackson
3 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Speaker Sara Gideon
2 State House Station
August, ME 04333

Dear President Jackson and Speaker Gideon,

We write to ask that you call the Legislature back in to session under Maine Constitution Article IV Part III Section 1 for the express and limited purpose of ending the Governor’s “Proclamation of State of Civil Emergency to Further Protect Public Health” through an emergency joint resolution pursuant to MRSA Title 37B chapter 13 subchapter 2 section 743 part 2. 

The successful management of any emergency declared by the Executive is dependent upon keeping the Legislature informed of the decision making process.  The delegation of authority to a single decision maker in a time of emergency is necessary to ensure swift action; however, if that decision making authority is used without consultation with the legislative body, it is our obligation to rescind that authority and establish a new process working with the Governor that involves all parties to better serve Maine.  

Unfortunately in recent weeks, concerns raised by the Legislature to the Governor have been met with disregard and even contempt.

We have repeatedly asked for accommodation from the Governor to allow her Commissioners to directly answer questions from members of the Maine Legislature and have been refused.

We have asked for additional data to be released from the CDC, data that is regularly provided in other states, and is essential in determining the state of the disease in Maine.  This data is necessary for setting public policy, and to date it has not been provided to us.

We have asked for a set of guiding principles that are being used to determine which businesses can open.  To date, we have not received any such information.  What we have been given is a phased-in plan that seemingly picks winners and losers.  It imposes an arbitrary set of rules for our businesses with no information on the scientific data used to create them.   

We have asked what is being done to increase and improve testing while we learn of private testing companies in Maine closing testing sites for a lack of business.  We have received no answers.

It is for these reasons and others not listed here, that it has become necessary for the Legislature to return and end the emergency proclamation.  If the Governor refuses to share the information necessary to keep us informed of how she is making decisions of her own accord, we are left with no choice but to convene and demand she answer our questions with the full force of Legislative authority.  

Sincerely,

Senator Dana Dow
Senate Republican Leader
 

Representative Kathleen Dillingham                                        
House Republican Leader

Senator Jeff Timberlake
Assitant Senate Republican Leader
                             

Representative Harold “Trey” Stewart
Assistant House Republican Leader

Share

Maine’s Proposed Transmission Line: Lying, Cheating, Stealing, Fraud and Hypocrisy

All governments and those criminal agencies who support and perpetuate fraud and deception in their common practices, sometimes get caught with horse manure on their hands. With dirty hands dripping with juicy dung, then the criminal politicians go to work to change existing laws that will, somehow, run in their favor – whether financially or garnering votes. Some things never change.

Central Maine Power (CMP) company wants to destroy a great deal of forest in Maine, some of which will be on Maine Public Land, to run a transmission line from a hydro project in Canada to supply electricity in Massachusetts, a state that irresponsibly neglects their own needs choosing instead to satisfy their wants via the destruction of others -typical of today.

I was reading this article in a Maine newspaper about a recent revelation that CMP seems to have already received permits to “lease” Maine Public Land, those permits, depending on whose lie is being perpetuated to get what they want, were issued as the perhaps the cart ahead of the horse scenario.

Who to believe?

The former director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, says that nobody told him about the Public Lands being used for a transmission line before he issued permits. But read what he was quoted as saying: “When I was working on it, I believed that it was for renewable energy and possibly windmills to be built in that region.” We’ll come back to this in a moment.

The former director also claims that by the time any application for land lease reached his office, it should have met all approvals by the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. Did the director assume and didn’t bother to check? Aren’t there any checks and balances? Or does any of this matter anymore?

Any lease, according to this news report, is “…conditioned upon the project receiving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity,” which CMP already has. Who issues this certificate and what was the criteria to get it?

Like with anything in this age of totalitarian head-bangers (spoiled brats) those opposing the transmission line, decided to craft a bill that would nullify the lease and require that any changes of use of the Public Lands be handled through the Legislature by a two-thirds majority vote. Is this how things are now done? Just make a new law voiding an older one without due process? Does CMP have a legal permit? Can a government simply nullify such a permit simply because they disagree with the proposed project? If so, what kind of trouble are Maine residents going to face with no assurance that any laws are any good anymore?

I don’t want the corridor either but I also place some kind of value on law and order which should give us slaves some sense of where they can go and how they can get there. This looks like a mess and that it got that way from a combination of greasy hands and typical criminal politics.

But, let’s return to the statement made by the former director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, where he said, “When I was working on it, I believed that it was for renewable energy and possibly windmills to be built in that region.” From this statement, are we to believe that a lease was signed by the director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands (we don’t even know if this lease was issued legally or not) for Maine Public Lands to be used to erect windmills and that a lease wouldn’t have been issued for a transmission line? Shouldn’t the consideration for a lease on public land be considered for the amount of change of use and destruction any project would bring? Evidently, this lease decision was based on one’s belief about Climate Change and their personal perspectives on what is, or isn’t, “renewable energy.”

Below are a couple of pictures. One shows the destruction from the construction of windmills, the other an electrical transmission line. Is one of these less destructive than the other?

This is a clearcut which is but one small portion of the entire site where windmills were erected. What kind of forest destruction is there here? Is this how Mainers want their public lands used?
A typical Maine transmission line.

Are we then to assume that because a lease was granted to a company for one type of use over another, that one is more or less destructive than the other? It would seem to me that before any further nonsense with wind power and transmission line permits are granted, Maine residents need to ask a few more questions and get a few more honest answers.

Share

And Right on Cue, Out Come the “Balance of Nature” Scorpions

I knew that yesterday when I published a short piece about one Maine town planning on spending $27,000 to kill a handful of rabies-infected animals causing safety problems within the town, that the misguided and ill-informed masses would begin speaking out in protest of killing any animal. And here they come.

I apologize that I cannot give you a link because the story I read this morning was from a copy of the newsprint version.

Aside from the lies about nature being in balance and the need to protect rabies-infected animals, like foxes, skunks, and raccoons, nothing ever seems to change as people refuse to correct their ignorance and make decisions based on something other than emotional clap trap.

When you read foolish drivel like, “Everything is connected. When you take something out, you disrupt the whole balance,” one can only ask where do people get this terrible information from. And then I remember, it is the babble that is taught in our schools and perpetuated by the media.

I’ve been trying to educate the public for years about the intellectual rubbish of “Balance of Nature.” “Nature,” as most have grown to believe is some magical mystery tour, is a vicious and continuous cycle of positive and negative feedback loops. What that means to us simple folks is that it is always changing and most often is replete with wild fluctuations.

But, I digress in order to attempt to make some sort of sense out of who would, out of their self-acclaimed love affair with Nature, consider protecting the likely perpetuation of rabies, not only on the animals but the people who come in contact with them, in order to achieve a “balance” that does not exist? Do we exchange one disease for another based on preferred animal affections?

Rabies is a cyclical disease, as a reflection of the truth of the positive and negative feedback loops; some years there’s rabies, some years there’s not. It is basic information to understand that diseases are most often spread when there are too many of one group of animals – in this case the canines that carry the disease. This is a clear indication that there is no balance, otherwise there wouldn’t be any issues with numerous encounters between people and wild animals and the threat of disease. This is not a difficult concept to handle when observed away from an emotional attachment to animals, coupled with having been taught false information.

Believing that if left alone, the foxes, raccoons, and skunks, diseased or not, would solve the rodent problem that carries other ticks and diseases that transmit Lyme and other diseases, then believers of such rubbish surely should then believe that there is some magic formula that will take care of the foxes, raccoons, and skunks. So, why is there a problem of too many wild canines that are carrying rabies and threatening people, if nature was in balance?

And why do we pay good money to have fish and wildlife departments and federal departments to handle such threats from diseases that pose public safety issues? If “Nature” balanced itself, think of the money we could save.

If people understood the realities of “leaving nature alone,” they would know that, at times, it requires man to step in and responsibly take care of public health and safety issues…even if it means checking a population of animals to facilitate the resolve to an important problem.

It’s always easy to speak up for the protection of animals when these diseased animals aren’t in your backyard threatening you and your family. Have some sense. Ridding the community of a few rodent-eating varmints isn’t the end of their world. As is obvious, these animals will reproduce and come back, probably to threaten the neighborhoods again.

Take a Xanax and call me in the morning.

Share

$27,000 To Euthanize Possible Rabies-Infected Wildlife

A small city and area in the mid-coast region of Maine has announced plans to set out traps to catch animals that might be infected with rabies. Evidently, there have been several encounters between people and foxes and other critters that can carry rabies, and concerns are growing to the point town managers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) think something needs to be done.

Before I make my statement that is sure to piss off a great number of people, let me say that dealing with rabies in wild animals is a difficult task. There is no way of knowing whether any animal is rabid. The town feels they are at a point where they must kill off a percentage of the animals that can contract and spread rabies in order to reduce encounters with people. Even the USDA says this action has no guarantee to stop the spread of rabies.

So, here’s the insane part. It’s going to cost the town nearly $27,000 to put out 20 traps and check them for a period of 10 days. So what costs so much? That’s easy. Let me paste here exactly what one news report printed: “The traps will not be lethal or harm the animal, but every wild animal caught in the traps will be euthanized.”

This is insanity! Is there a reason, other than the trapping “will not be lethal or harm the animal,” that lethal traps can’t be used? The animals are going to be killed…period. Kill them, properly dispose of them, and be done with it. The bulk of the cost of “euthanizing” the captured animals is putting the animals down “humanely.”

I know, I know. But seriously. Think about it. $27,000 is going to be spent to kill how many animals?

I’m sorry. I just can’t help myself. I wasn’t raised that way.

Share

Is What We Are Being Told About Habitat Really True?

One has to wonder. I was reading this morning about issues with feeding whitetail deer in Maine. George Smith, outdoor writer, shares with his readers that: “A SAM [Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine] survey of our members in 2018 revealed that 26% had fed deer sometime during the previous 3 winters. That equates to about 2,000 feeding sites, just among SAM members!” This information, as I understand it, does not include data from food plots, i.e. those places around where people plant crops specifically to feed deer.

So, let’s say there are about 2,000 feeding sites across Maine each winter season. We don’t know the location of all these feeding stations and/or the ones that aren’t included in the SAM survey report. (Is it reasonable to think that there are more deer feeding sites from people who are NOT members of SAM?) Consider that there is a possibility that if there are feeding stations near each other, some feed lots are sharing the feeding of the same deer.

Regardless, can you guess what the average number of deer that are being fed per feed site? If I were to take a wild guess, I’ve seen some where at peak feeding time, it appears as many as 100 deer are chowing down. Back yard feed sites, might get around a dozen, maybe more and maybe less.

For argument sake, let’s say each of the 2,000 + deer feeding sites nourishes 30 deer (I think that might be conservative so bear with me). That would mean, excluding some deer that might move between two or more feeding sites, perhaps 60,000 deer are receiving supplemental nourishment they wouldn’t get if they were on their own.

If the 60,000+ deer receiving supplemental nourishment (and once again, this does not include summer food plots and those feed stations that SAM isn’t aware of) comprise at least one quarter, and perhaps one half, of the statewide deer population, and not having any scientific data on geographic locations, what is this activity doing to the survival and promotion of healthier deer throughout the state?

We are repeatedly told that during the harshest parts of the winter months, deer browse on stuff that is of little or no value as far as nutrition goes. The fiber ingested more or less fills an empty stomach. So, ask yourself whether or not the deer that are being fed are better nourished. If so, what does that mean for the long term for deer?

If you’ve ever watched deer interact at a feed station, you will notice that the bigger deer bully the smaller deer, such that the smaller, and less aggressive deer, get what’s left over. Biologists and others have stated that feed plots aren’t “fair” because of this natural dynamic. Shouldn’t we consider that whatever “scraps” the runts get is certainly more than they would get without food sites?

Have you ever been to a deer wintering area and observed the realities taking place there? One quite obvious dynamic is the neat trimming that takes place of the bows of trees in the lowest parts of the canopy. As winter progresses and the snow level rises, so too does the trim line at the lower parts of the trees. When the trees have all been trimmed that can more or less easily be reached, deer begin to stand up on the hind legs in order to reach the tree bows. This means the bigger (taller) deer get food and the runts don’t. According to the misguided thinking of some, this natural event wouldn’t be “fair” either.

What does happen then with a quarter, or more, of the total deer population in Maine getting “unnatural” food? Do these deer receive the necessary energy to help them survive those long harsh winters better? If so, to what extent is the increased survival affecting the mortality rate of the deer herd? Does this increased nutrition cause the fawn survival rate to go up? If so, how much? Is it skewing natural dynamics? Does this event send those biological triggers, often conveniently talked up by animal rights groups and predator advocates, that “cause” deer to produce more as part of their reproductive rates?

There are many things to be considered with this extent of deer feeding. Probably we are left with more questions than answer. However, when we consider what we are being told about habitat and deer mortality rates etc., we might be looking at two different consequences of deer feeding. One consequence might be that we are seeing more deer added each year to the total deer population, or perhaps at least in those areas where deer feeding is more concentrated. Are we? Have we received any word from the biologists in charge of deer management that the population is actually growing? Maybe word from observations from those who feed deer can tell us if they are feeding more deer each year. I would think they ought to know. Don’t they count them? Does the harvest data indicate that the population of deer might be going up?

If none of this is actually happening, then it would be sensible to ask just what the condition of the deer herd would be without any supplemental feeding.

If you think about all these things, then one has to wonder if law makers and game managers are making too big a deal out of feeding deer. Is it really hurting in any way? Yes, there are concerns over spreading of disease, but is there an equitable concern for disease and virus spread throughout the landscape of all wildlife? If Chronic Wasting Disease was found in Maine, I’m positive the state would immediately implement all necessary actions to curb the spread. Supplemental feeding isn’t going to cause CWD, but it might contribute to spreading the disease.

We should probably ask ourselves how significant changes in feed and habitat, quality and quantity, are to the management of our wildlife. Is it like we are being told?

I think supplemental feeding of at least one quarter of the total deer herd is significant. I also believe this activity has contributed to the survival and reproduction of more deer. With that said, what would the state of the deer herd be today without the years of supplemental feeding?

Share

Maine 2019 Deer Harvest With Big Buck Data

Below you will find a chart that shows the deer harvest in Maine since 1999. The chart gives readers comparisons based on the full data available since 2000, as a percentage or departure from data of 2000. In addition, the information provided gives the number of 200 lb+ bucks that were reported to the Maine Sportsman magazine. One thing such a comparison gives us is a peek into the big buck trends taking place across the state.

Thank you goes out to my good friend who does the work and compiles the chart.

Maine Deer Harvest Comparison Chart – 1999 – 2019
Share