January 23, 2019

The Results of Socialistic Romance Biology Wildlife Management and Scape-Goating

I just can’t seem to leave this subject alone. I get angry when I see governments doing what governments do. The time and money wasted on useless, post-normal, bureaucratic B.S. that ends in worthless and trivial nonsense that amounts to no more than a hill of ________. (You fill in the blank.)

Earlier I wrote about Maine’s plan to subcontract out a portion of their black bear management plan. In that article I made the comment: “…why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

“Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?”

And then it donned on me. Recently the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) took a similar tactic when they wasted (in my opinion) money hiring a scientismistic private entity to conduct a “survey” to help MDIFW decide how they should do their jobs. It has always puzzled me that MDIFW refuses to open their ears and communicate with the boots-on-the-ground outdoors people but are eager and willing to hire some environmentalist-trained, biased company to tell them how to manage wildlife and outdoor recreation when said company knows squat about Maine or the people in it.

We have seen results of this corrupt environmentalist, Human Interaction, “survey” in the recent big game management plans. I think MDIFW seeking “outside” assistance is just another nail in the coffin to go along with the fraudulent management plans that apparently the department is incapable of crafting or too scared to do without laying the blame and responsibility on the results of the survey, i.e. some outside private business for profit entity.

When you combine the actions of MDIFW leadership over the past 2 or 3 years, I am left with no other explanation as to why Maine, once thought of as the leader in wildlife management, also once a leader in big game hunting and world class fishing, is so eager to do a double-flush of the toilet making sure all that was once good is now gone.

When nothing changes with the bear management plans and reaching the goals crafted in the new plan is a failure, MDIFW can conveniently blame whoever or whatever it is that told them what they ought to do.

MDIFW has had multiple recommendations pushed in front of them concerning bear management. It’s laughable that MDIFW will buckle and cave to the demands of environmentalists and guides, refusing to do anything constructive to reduce the bear population out of fear of reprisals from guides, environmentalists, and animal rights groups, while shutting their ears and eyes to the real sportsmen. And then, we see this act of seeking an outside opinion. You can’t make this stuff up.

Because MDIFW refuses to do what’s right, they are slaves to guides, outfitters and the environmental movement. The result, they claim, is they can’t find (wink-wink) a solution to the supposed bear problem.

What will we hear next? MDIFW has decided to award their bear management subcontract to a subsidiary of the Humane Society of the United States based in China?

Share

The Mythical Bear Study Extremists Seem to Adore

The other day I wrote about how the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) announced that it was seeking bids from private enterprise to assist them with devising a “model” to better control the black bear population in Maine.

*Important Note*(I find that the MDIFW’s credibility on wildlife management issues dwindles the more they talk. Maybe that’s why they are so close-lipped about many things. I say this because here we have a situation in which the MDIFW is coming off announcements of the release of their future big game management plans which calls for less focus on counting the numbers of deer, bear, moose, turkeys, etc. and placing more focus on a “healthy” population. Evidently, MDIFW is discovering how difficult it must be for them to manage these game species without spending time counting. As such, it now appears the MDIFW has reached out to private enterprise to help them COUNT.)

As a result of the latest announcement of seeking outside help, the Media has erupted with information from every Tom (LOL), Dick, and Harry either for or against this idea, which seems to be going hand in hand with the announcement that newly elected governor Janet Mills has selected the current head of the Division of Wildlife at MDIFW, Judy Camuso, to be the next commissioner of the department.

In the fray, it seems members of the media and heads of animal rights groups have crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Mills’ appointment of Camuso is a big mistake because she did her job under Commissioner Woodcock and was his mouthpiece during the last bear referendum.

It should be noted that these groups and much of the echo-chamber Press, will not give up this fight until they get what they want. Eventually, they will.

In many a previous discussion about bear hunting, more specifically using bait as a hunting method, those who opposed baiting bear (realistically they oppose all hunting regardless of method.) have never had any “scientific” studies to support their claims, until 4 people from the University of Southern Maine created a study of their own – a “model” I might add, and most of us should know by now what modeling does when it comes to science. Which brings me to the point of this article.

The so-called “study” can be found at this link.

I’m not going to spend a great deal of time going through the entire study to point out the flaws. However, in order that people can make intelligent decisions, especially when it comes to voter referendums, somebody ought to tell the truth and point out the realities, especially when it comes to such things as “models” used as a “scientific” foundation to build a political argument.

First, I should say that it is my opinion that much of what was published in this study is credible, however falsely based on Natural Regulation. What is missing is information that would seriously manipulate the results that were concluded from the modeling done. Unless, you are intelligent enough to read and understand the entire study, cherry picking quotes and statements here and there to promote one’s agenda is dishonest at best.

Throughout the study, the authors repeatedly state that they “made assumptions” and purposely did not include data that would have altered the results of the study, but stated they “were satisfied with the outcomes.” *Note* – If the outcome is what is desired, what’s not to be satisfied about it?

When anyone models information to arrive at some kind of conclusion, it is far too easy to manipulate the input in order to obtain a desired outcome. This outcome, it is realized, becomes a powerful tool for the very same reason that animal rights groups are cherry-picking information to substantiate their agendas. This is precisely the definition of “Scientism.”

I doubt that the authors of this study are any more qualified to create it than I am. I will note that references and resources, of course were hand-picked. In addition, I will give very little credibility to any information used as a reference in a so-called scientific study that uses Wikipedia. If you don’t understand this statement then you will not understand the basis of my entire article.

Modeling, as I said, is far too easy to manipulate input to get the output desired. I’m not definitively saying the authors deliberately went out of their way to devise the outcome they desired. Only you can make that assessment yourselves.

Therefore, guess work and estimates are useless in deriving any conclusions that are anything but guess work and estimates – garbage in and garbage out.

Data used by the study writers, included data that comes from the MDIFW website. Ironic isn’t it that those animal rights advocates will jump all over hand-selected data from this study (much of which comes from MDIFW) to aid and abet their passions but in the same breath curse the department for being ignorant of bear management. How is that?

The MDIFW will be the first to admit their data on species populations are estimates – estimate in, estimate out. Studies and Modeling supports estimates and guesses.

Even though as I stated, much of what is written is reasonable if only it was more honestly stated that their results are only estimates of the inexact data they had to work with. The truth is there are so many variables in the life cycles, ecosystem changes, and management plans, attempting to claim that baiting bears causing the population to grow is really quite dishonest.

Too many simplistic assumptions are made in order for the authors to reach the conclusions that they did. One that just kept jumping out at me was the bulk of their modeling and the results they obtained were based on the belief that in the late Summer and early Fall, when bear hunting and baiting is being done, bears naturally eat only beechnuts. Really? In off years and in areas where there are no beech trees, the poor bears must starve to death.

As the study states, most biologist agree that bears prefer natural food over the slop baiters put out to entice them, and yet, so many conclusions are made based on this notion that bears eat only beechnuts in the Fall.

Another issue I find incomplete, or dishonest if that’s what you choose to believe, is the study doesn’t even mention where baiting takes place and how the food used in baiting can contribute to a false “carry capacity” as a percentage of the total statewide bear population. If it is true that baiting bears contributes millions of calories and 7 million pounds of “unnatural” food for bears, what is the percentage of bears that are actually getting bait food versus those that never see it, or at least what comes in a barrel in the middle of the woods? This study is void of such discussion.

I will repeat, there are just too many variables to be able to make the claims these authors did that baiting bears causes the population statewide to increase every year, evidently with no end in sight.

I will also point out that much of the information contained in this study is based on the myth of natural regulation. Figures and formulas are presented based on the theory of natural regulation. There is no such thing in the context of which it was presented in this study. Natural Regulation, perhaps more accurately described as Natural Irregularity, everything is a constant changing of positive and negative feedback loops. These loops provide large swings up and down of species population. Odd that these authors even used their own devised positive and negative feedback loops and yet somehow those loops only contribute to a growing bear population when baiting is being done.

But we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Although many choose to only hand-select information that benefits them and their political agendas, the authors offer conclusions and remedies to what they perceive as a management problem. Let’s look.

The authors conclude that bear baiting increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” and based on their findings the current bear management plan will not reduce the bear population. *Note*If baiting of bears increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” then in theory, and using the same logic used in this modeling, unless there is a constant increase in the number of bear hunters and the amount of bait being spread throughout the bears’ ecosystem, then why doesn’t the “false” carrying capacity created by baiting, level off and thus the population of bears level off as part of their false natural regulation?

I think I would have to agree with at least the part that says that unless the MDIFW changes something the bear population is going to continue to grow provided all other variables remain relatively constant.

The authors make recommendations as to what MDIFW can do. It might appear to me that all of those opposed to bear hunting deliberately avoid mentioning these recommendations. Who can blame them? I might add that these animal rights people want only hunting, trapping, and fishing to be banned and let “Natural Regulation” take over. Part of me wishes this would happen just so I can say I told you so.

The recommendations given in a nutshell are these:

First, ban baiting. Their model “suggests” if baiting was banned only about 700 fewer bears would be killed. (Note – I wonder if that number includes any of the bears they chose to not include in the model that shows baiting grows the population?)

Second, encourage the hunting of female bears and cubs. GASP!!! How dare anyone whose data I used to promote anti-hunting agendas suggest killing momma and baby bears!! GASP!! (again)

Third – and this is the one that floors me – continue the use of bait but switch the bait from junk food to “natural beechnuts.” Say what? If the argument is that baiting artificially grows the carrying capacity and thus artificially grows the population, how then is switching the bait going to change much. Is it that we have now become more and more conscious of the bears’ diet? Yes, I have also read that as well.

So where do the beechnuts come from? Doing a quick Google search I couldn’t find any stores that market and sell beechnuts. So……? Are hunters and guides supposed to start collecting bushel baskets and hiring people to go out and pick beechnuts to bait deer with? Maybe there’s an after-school job for some young boys and girls harvesting beechnuts to provide bear guides with bait.

If the bait used for bear hunting is supposed to be changed from junk food to natural beechnuts, the ONLY way I know of to do this without altering the natural ecosystem carrying capacity, is to pick the beechnuts from the trees within that ecosystem and make feeding by the bears easier. Remember in the “regulated” world of Natural Regulation, beechnuts cannot be brought into an area where they did not naturally appear, otherwise what’s the difference in what you use for bait unless the concern is to provide a healthy diet and cut down on tooth decay in bears?

Part of the circular, confusing reasoning used in this study, the conclusions derived, and suggestions made shows up when the authors suggest that introducing bears to human food will, “teach bears to associate humans with food.” Smart critters aren’t they. I’ve always asked the question and never given an honest answer, if bears are so damned smart that they learn to associate human food with humans, are they equally as smart to learn that human food might mean a bullet in the butt?

There will always be disagreements with wildlife management. In recent years, as the culture of this nation morphs into something I perceive as perverted, things have gone far beyond disagreements in wildlife management practices. They have gone to a point where people are demanding an end to long-held traditions of hunting, trapping, and fishing. Their beliefs cause them to take whatever direction they need to in order to get their way.

Ironic it is, that some who advocate for animals rights and protection, even wishing to deny a person’s inalienable right to eat the foods that LORD GOD ALMIGHTY provided us, take offense to anyone who counters their idealistic Romance Biology, as though we are supposed to just shut up and do as we are told…by them.

Share

Politics, Culture, Environmentalism, Set To Maine Looking to Compromise Black Bear Management

It certainly appears to me that Maine is being set up for changes that are sure to destroy much of what is left of a once-scientific wildlife management department.

Headlining the news around the Pine Tree State, is the announcement that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is seeking bids from private businesses to establish a “model” that can be used by MDIFW biologists in managing black bears.

Think about this for a moment. For decades now, Maine has boasted as having the premier black bear management program in this here United States. Now they seek outside help? Why? Think what you will but I have my suspicions – the leader of such distrustful actions being another way of appeasing the Environmentalists and Animal Rights purveyor of perverted, and misguided scientismic nonsense to support their agendas. What other reasons are there? To publicly seek outside help is, more than likely, taken by the public as some kind of admission that they can no longer do the job.

If you will recall, MDIFW has stated for several years now that the black bear population is too large and needs to be reduced. However, talk apparently is cheap because with all the talk nothing has changed to mitigate the problem. Are there enough complaints from non-scientific animal rights groups that MDIFW feels the need to go aside the department hoping to muster more believable “data” that they hope will convince the radical Left? Is this some kind of red herring devised to bring more support from the extreme Left to the new governor’s side should she decide to trash the whole idea of better bear management replaced with Romance Biology?

Strange isn’t it that this announcement comes shortly after a new governor has been elected. As is almost always the case, the new Governor, Janet Mills (D), will appoint new commissioners to run her administration. Included in those appointments is that of the MDIFW. Reigning Commissioner Woodcock, who leaves behind a mixed bag of results, will be replaced. It appears Mills’ nomination is the current Director of the Wildlife Division, Judy Camuso.

I have read that the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance supports the Camuso nomination but I haven’t really heard any good reasons for doing so. Some on the Left oppose Camuso’s nomination because she was the mouthpiece for MDIFW during the last anti-bear hunting referendum. While many may support her because of her performance as Division of Wildlife director under Woodcook, it may be plausible that Camuso should be applauded for doing the job Woodcock/LePage wanted her to do. Does anyone really know anything about her political affiliations, her positions on hunting, fishing, trapping, Environmentalism, or Animal Rights?

Politics is politics and you can be sure that such good ole boy corruption will never be put aside to find the best available candidate for the job. Don’t get me wrong. I said I don’t know any of this stuff. What I do know is that she seemed to be a good mouthpiece for Mr. Woodcock. In reality, when you consider the governor elect’s background, why would she nominate someone that wasn’t her yes person?

Environmentalism is taking over the world and Maine is not exempt. A demanding society, the loudest of which is always on the Left, promotes a culture change void of any kind of scientific-based wildlife management programs – such programs that utilize consumptive use as a tool for population controls to promote animal health, public safety, and the opportunity for traditionalists to fill their freezers with food and enjoy the long held traditions of hunting, fishing, and trapping.

In its place, we have seen a growing trend toward demanding the rights of animals over those of people, regardless of the outcome. Instead of using real, proven science in wildlife management, the choice of today is scientism. Essentially, Scientism is the process of creating a desired result for any chosen agenda.

Scientism is most often exposed when anyone, and I mean anyone, can fabricate what appears to be a scientific study, when in fact it is a fraud conjured from the notion that most of the world knows no different and will eagerly accept this fraud as a powerful tool of (fake) scientific knowledge.

We can see that in a “study” composed by a Ph.D and three Masters of Business Administration people from the University of Southern Maine. (and what are their qualifications in creating and substantiating the claims made in the study?) This is the Bible (there is nothing else), evidently, of the radical Left animal rights groups who have spent millions of dollars in attempts to end bear hunting – just another step to the ending of all hunting, trapping, and fishing.

The Voodoo Science and Romance Biology in the Scientismic study is proven as such from merely a basic understanding of hypocrisy and contradictory statements.

Not to get sidetracked, but the point to all of this is why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?

Or maybe it’s nothing more than a sign of what’s to come – the MDIFW, like so many other fish and wildlife departments across the country, has pretty much gone completely environmental, driven exclusively by social demands and global warming.

So, what will happen in Maine and specifically to the MDIFW? Who is Camuso…really? Is she a clone of the new governor? Is she merely a puppet and will do whatever to keep the governor happy? Does she support the move to privatize some of black bear management? What other wildlife species will the new governor and commissioner choose to privatize management of? I’m not sure we can honestly answer these questions. The commissioner elect said she would answer questions AFTER the nomination and election process is over. How then are we to know who the governor is nominating. All members of all parties, as well as those of us who do not identify with any party, would like a chance to voice our concerns before she is elected.

Regardless of all this – black bear modeling, new commissioner – I have little hope that much will change for the good.

Share

Please Name The Benefits

When the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife announced earlier this year that their migration to a new digital tagging system, they told in their press release that this move was going to be very beneficial to hunters. I wondered.

The other day I read another outdoor writer make the statement that this new tagging system, if done properly, would “…allow for even more opportunities that benefit recreational hunters, as well.”

Inquiring minds want to know just how this is going to benefit hunters and provide more “opportunities?”

I think I can guess that if this new system was “done properly,” in other words allowed for the growth and sustainability of all game species for ample surplus harvest, it could be a benefit. But really?

Any help would be appreciated. You can add comments below.

Share

Maine Hunting And Fishing: Not Marketed or Not Attractive?

George Smith’s article in the Bangor Daily news says, “DIF&W used to work with the outdoor industry, including guides and sporting camps, to market hunting and fishing in our state. But they don’t do that today.”

Is that the job of government, to market private business and industry? Some would think so. They might even invoke the “Commerce Clause” in the U.S. Constitution which states: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Commerce Clause says its purpose is to “regulate” not necessarily to market and promote. Of course, for those who have spent some time studying the Commerce Clause, we know how the tyrannical government has abused the clause with its mandate to “regulate” to control and manipulate private business and the people of this country in ways that require a vivid imagination to link certain laws with Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Personally, I don’t think it is the job of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to market hunting and fishing, but is that really the issue in Maine? Is the state in need of marketing hunting and fishing or is it a problem of “if you build it, they will come?” By this I mean is Maine an attractive enough place to hunt and fish that those capable and interested in traveling to other places beyond their home state to hunt and fish would find appealing enough to do so?

I would suppose that much involved in answering that question is based upon one’s perspective. It is mostly all relative to what a person might find attractive.

Also bear in mind that from what I gather talking to locals throughout the state, there’s not a lot of interest in bringing in outsiders to spread thinner the dwindling supplies of fish and game. Can we blame them? If that is understandable, are these same locals interested in their hard-earned money being used to promote private business? What’s in it for them? Maybe a few other private businesses may profit from more out-of-staters coming to hunt and fish but the majority of Maine hunters and fisherman are more interested in filling their freezers with game – a product that seems to be dwindling in Maine which might be the biggest reason these businesses, in part, are struggling to make ends meet.

Let’s take a look at a few of these fish and game species and see how attractive they are.

Maine is noted for having good trout fishing and yet the most popular fishing is for bass. Does Maine do a good job of promoting bass fishing or is it all trout fishing? 

Deer hunting is a struggling enterprise. Where once population objectives for deer were sought to be around 350,000 animals, the newest plan for deer management is calling for around 200,000 deer by the year 2020. Even though the most recent deer harvest was better than it has been in the past ten years, two things directly contributed to the increase – snow to hunt on and a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” issued (an issuance that makes little sense to many.)

Examination of data seems to indicate that as the deer harvest shrinks, along with it is the number and size of “trophy” class bucks. With a success rate below 20% and a shrinking trophy-class bucks, what’s the attraction that’s worth MDIFW spending time, personnel and money to market? (Note: Those who can afford to come to Maine “from away” to trophy hunt are the wealthy – aren’t they?)

Bear hunting attracts out-of-state hunters but an overabundance of the animals directly competes with deer and moose growth and bear are fond of fawns and calves for their meals.

MDIFW admits they need to reduce the bear population but so far have shown they have no serious intentions of doing anything about it. They whimper at the demands of guides and outfitters who want bountiful bear to keep their clientele happy. Is this the results we would get if MDIFW marketed hunting and fishing? No thanks!

Turkeys are a nuisance. All I have heard all year long is people commenting, both positively and negatively, about turkeys. There are just far too many of them and not very many people have an interest in hunting them. It is historically proven that when society begins to perceive any animal in a negative way, managers lose support for their programs. Perhaps it is time to allow the hunting of turkeys with a big game license, for both in-state and out-of-state hunters. There may be an interest in taking a few turkeys if hunters didn’t have to buy a special permit to do so. That might be a way of “marketing” hunting in the state while at the same time solve the turkey problem. But, then again, turkey hunting is prevalent and available in so many places the market is saturated. What does Maine have that other states don’t?

Which brings us to moose hunting. Year after year we hear repeatedly the disappointment of never getting drawn for a moose permit. It seems perhaps the program more resembles that of the king’s than a resource for all to enjoy. The program seems to benefit the wealthy in buying points etc. The other problem that exists with moose is one that seems to be backfiring into the faces of MDIFW from greed. The greed comes from trying to grow so many moose they can demand more money for the hunt and at the same time keep businesses trying to eke out a living through moose gawking tours. Now there is a tick and disease problem that is working to mitigate the greed. Where this will end who is certain?

With limited resources and plans for the future that appear to be calling for even fewer hunting opportunities, what’s to market? I spent many years of my earlier life in business. I never asked, nor did I want, government’s “help” with anything. As a matter of fact, I wanted them to butt out of my business knowing that any “help” they offered came in the form of more control and restrictions that directly limited my ability to prosper.

Maybe business owners, no matter who they are or what their business it, should move further away from centralized social government (what can my government do for me) and do what they can to get government out of their businesses so they can be free to change with the times. We have all been programmed to believe government is the answer. When will we learn?

Share

Disease: For the Love of Predators?

Here we go with one more “study” that “suggests” that a reduction in the presence of foxes and perhaps other smaller predators who feast on mice is causing an increase in those rodents/mice that carry and spread diseases such as Lyme Disease.

For at least 6 years there have been ample studies suggesting the same thing. However, one of the problems associated with these so-called “studies” is that in one form or another all causes not desired by the individual or group of individuals seeking desired results, are blamed on “Climate Change,” i.e. Global Warming.

When reading the latest report about predators and the spread of disease, I recalled that I had read not that long ago about Joh Lund, publisher of the Maine Sportsman Magazine stating that he tended to agree that a reduction in the number of foxes could be the root cause of an increase in Lyme and other diseases carried and spread by small rodents like the white-footed mouse that carries Lyme. Lund’s hypothesis is that the reduction of foxes is caused by direct competition from coyotes. With Maine and other states experiencing ample growth in the number of coyotes, wolves, and coywolves, the result is a sharp reduction in foxes and other smaller prey responsible for keeping in check the rodents that carry disease.

Perhaps we can just as easily blame the increased spread of diseases, such as Lyme disease, on a misguided approach to wildlife management. So long as wildlife managers insist that the crux of their decision making will be based upon social demands, i.e. the protection of large predators, then we cannot expect any changes that might result in the reduction of disease-carrying rodents.

To go along with this misguided approach to wildlife management, there are ample groups and individuals with pet projects aimed at protecting one species of animal over the other with all the fabricated excuses for doing so. The larger and wealthier the animal protection group is the more pressure they can put on wildlife managers who insist on making their decisions based on social demands. 

Most state wildlife managing departments openly invite this kind of pressure to be brought on themselves by publicly announcing that they will cave into social demands regardless of any scientific knowledge.

At work, we have those who believe that killing off large numbers of deer will reduce the presence and spread of Lyme Disease. We also have those who love coyotes, wolves, coywolves, and all other breeds and mixed breeds of wild dogs who refuse to allow any managers to necessarily go about killing those animals in order to find some kind of balance that should be desired for a healthy ecosystem and thus creating an atmosphere where people are less likely to get sick.

Perhaps lost in all this modern-day Voodoo Science and Romance Biology is the fact that animals are nasty and spread diseases. I don’t personally believe that this creation was intended to live in our homes or that we should be demanding that disease-spreading animals of any kind should be protected. This misguided hogwash about Nature’s Balance is causing all kinds of problems, the majority of which are not being talked about and people refuse to listen. It’s easier to blame all problems on Climate Change than to address these issues responsibly.

If wildlife biologists and managers, who aren’t completely brainwashed into this modern wildlife management hocus-pocus, were allowed to manage wildlife from a real scientific perspective and an understanding that many of these animals are a resource intended for the people, and void of perverted social demands, perhaps then and only then will be able to do a better job. Until that happens – and I’m not holding my breath, – we can expect more disease problems and safety threats to the people who want to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness. 

Share

HURRAH! Maine Provides Deer Harvest Total

For the first time ever, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has provided interested hunters with a pretty close estimate of what the total deer harvest was for 2018. This total includes all the seasons – 32,438. Wonderful.

According to the Bangor Daily News, the majority of the increase in deer harvest happened in Central and Southern Maine where a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) were issued, much to the chagrin of many who thought that increase, coming at a time when Maine is struggling to sustain a healthy viable deer population, was unwise. Nothing can be extrapolated from these early numbers as to the effects of a record number of ADPs and the real effect on the deer herds in Central and Southern Maine.

It should be a marvelous thing that hunters and other interested people can, while fresh in their minds, gain a better understanding of what just took place and carry that interest forward to following deer seasons. The way MDIFW has operated in the past by not providing any information on deer harvest has left many hunters with a feeling that MDIFW doesn’t care. Regardless of the reasons MDIFW failed to provide information that would have helped to give hunters a greater sense of ownership and involvement in deer management, hopefully that ancient and closed-mouth approach is history as MDIFW has entered the modern technological world when it comes to tabulating deer harvest.

What I am wondering is if MDIFW will provide the public with more information from these numbers – areas of increased harvest and why. Surely, with a record number of ADPs issued, one should expect the deer harvest would have had an increase. In addition, snow to hunt on for a good portion of the season had to have directly contributed to the increase. Let’s hope the increase harvest happened in those areas that MDIFW claims needed to be reduced and we haven’t further deteriorated a struggling deer herd.

We are all thankful for MDIFW getting this new technology into place. Now let’s keep the ball rolling and continue to improve on this. I have mentioned before that biologists and managers have access to essentially realtime tagging data. It should be with ease that MDIFW can place a page on their website where interested people can log in and view that same realtime data. The more that MDIFW can keep the interest of hunters growing, it will be a win-win for everyone. Let us more easily have access to that information. What’s to hide? 

Share

Ayuh! A Biggun! Wicked Lotta Hohns Too!

Share

Still Pushing “Climate Change” As Effecting Winter Ticks. Changing Propaganda?

It is incredibly insane listening to and reading the idiots who insist on spreading the lie that Climate Change is the cause for an increased presence of winter ticks which consequently are killing moose by sucking them dry of blood.

For years now, brain-dead scientismists have beat their propaganda drums that due to “lack of cold winters and ample snow” winter ticks are thriving and killing moose. Their premise has been that northern states, like Maine, because of warmer winters was not killing the ticks. Ignorance and the need to promote a false, non-existence of “Climate Change” (in the context that it is being promoted) failed to understand the complete life cycle of the tick and to what severity of cold, snow, and the right conditions needed to actually limit the number of ticks.

But that hasn’t stopped them from their money-making promotions of “Climate Change.”

From news out of Canada, a report falsely claims that global warming is the cause of moose mortality in Maine and other Northeast States as well as Canada. However, this time around, perhaps motivated by the fact that nobody is buying the B.S. that the lack of “normal” cold winters and snow are causing the ticks to thrive (people are looking out their windows and seeing 3-feet of snow and below zero temperatures in mid-November), they’ve decided to change their propaganda (lies) to approach the manipulation from a slightly different use of words (such as changing global warming to climate change): “…that tick is a parasite that’s given more time to find a host. Moose are just exposed to this potential parasite load for a longer period of time.” (emboldening added) There is never any consideration that the simple fact that too many moose perpetuate the growth and distribution of the winter tick.

Because, evidently, the lack of cold and snow (which isn’t happening on a regular basis) isn’t working out to substantiate their false claims of global warming they now are promoting that due to a warming climate ticks have a longer period of time to find a host moose to ride on for the winter and such them clean of blood.

What’s amazing is these clowns spend all of their “research” time (wink-wink) trying to figure out what’s happening to the moose because of the tick (by using someone else’s data) and nobody is interested in studying the actual tick. The only information being used about the tick is nonsense spread from one half-baked scientismist to another and repeated en masse and eagerly by an irresponsible, enabling, and lazy Media.

Evidently the authors of this propaganda piece didn’t bother to ask those in Maine conducting moose studies, or they didn’t want to because it might upset their agendas, otherwise, they would have found that Maine’s biologists are suggesting that the seemingly unprecedented spread of winter ticks is caused simply by the presence of too many moose.

But, there is no money in finding solutions and there is far more money in perpetuating “Climate Change.”

What’s most sad is the fact that truth and reality are being suppressed due to the perpetuation of the false myths about global warming.

Share

Too Many Deer Being Harvested?

Yeah, I know. I’m never satisfied. It’s either too hot or too cold, etc. However, just asking!

According to Bill Green of Bill Green’s Maine, hunters have taken 30,299 deer through the regular firearms season. Muzzleloader season remains.

Last season, 2017, total deer harvest of all disciplines, totaled 27,233. Easily Maine will exceed a 10% increase in deer harvested. Last year Maine muzzleloader hunters took 970 deer, so we might add another 1,000 deer to the 30,299 when harvest totals are completed.

I have discussed numbers and asked questions before, so let’s do this one more time. In 2017 Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) allotted 66,050 “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) with tags used totaling 6,054 doe (antlerless) deer. This harvest was 13% less than deer manager’s harvest projections.

My question going into this deer hunting season with MDIFW issuing a record number of ADPs, 84,745, was why did the projected “Any-Deer” harvest fall 13% short? Evidently, MDIFW managers believe that increasing the number of ADPs will increase the number of females, or antlerless deer harvested. But, do we know that falling short of projections was the result of not enough permits issued? It is important to have this information.

There’s a problem with issuing record numbers of ADPs, even if the majority of those ADPs are issued for Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) with more deer per square mile than managers desire – and one of those problems is what we have seen this season with hunters being able to hunt on lots of snow (in many places) for extended periods of time (three weeks in most of Western Maine).

I don’t have any scientific data to support any claim that it seems that it is in those areas with the most snow, falling on the earliest dates, are in those WMDs where deer per square mile is extremely sparse. With early snow in those areas combined with a record number of ADPs, have we harvested too many deer? What will this cost us?

While it is nice for hunters that 31,000 deer have been harvested, the increase in harvest is NOT due to an increase in the overall population of deer throughout the state. What does this mean for next year’s deer harvest? While it’s too early to predict, with better than two feet of snow on the ground in the Western Foothills, and we haven’t reached December yet, are we staring down the barrel of another “severe” winter that will wipe out the rest of the herd? Do deer managers factor in the possibility of hunters having snow to hunt on nearly the entire season, which in and of itself causes harvest numbers to increase? This amount of snow this early is not even close to approaching normal. (Damned the Global Warming)

Are we going to pay for this and if so, how much?

Addendum:

I have spent many years bitching and complaining that MDIFW cannot get deer harvest numbers out to the public in some time period less than 6-8 months after the fact. MDIFW has finally done it and digitalized the tagging process so that this information is at the hands of managers instantly.

While it appears that the only way to get that information is to contact someone at MDIFW and hope for cooperation, we can get occasional updates from media sources who get cooperation, such as Bill Green.

I have expressed that there are few excuses to use that would prohibit the managers from placing live tagging information on the MDIFW website and would certainly like to see this in another year. We’ll see.

With that all said, congratulations and thank you to the personnel at MDIFW for getting this task moved into the modern era and that we can at least have harvest data that we don’t have to wait months for.

*Editor’s Note* – Within moments of publishing this report, MDIFW published a press release with deer harvest information. You can read their report by clicking on this link.

Share