August 24, 2019

They Say It’s Mud Season…Somewhere

Share

More Moose Permits Fewer Moose Ticks – Connection?

It’s difficult most of the time to separate what a person says or doesn’t say in a Media report from what the author is either required to say or is brainwashed enough they don’t know the difference. I think we are seeing some of this in an article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald about Maine’s intention to increase the number of moose permits they will have available for profit.

Lee Kantar is the head moose biologist at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). When the MDIFW began their mostly secretive moose study, I held out little hope that much good would come out of it due to the extent to which brainwashing by Environmentalism has infiltrated the fish and wildlife community and every level of existence.

None of that has changed, however, there has been glimmers of hope in scattered reports from the MDIFW. It appears that Mr. Kantar might even have come to understand that there is a correlation between the number of moose and the number of winter ticks that are a cause of mortality in the great beast community. Perhaps (I may be giving him the doubt on this one) he even has a better understanding of the life cycle of the winter tick…(I’ll leave that one with a question mark at the end)?…? (make it two)

Kantar says: “This year, there was lower reproduction in moose in some parts of the state. Winter tick does not kill cows, it kills calves. But winter tick does put enough pressure on cows that are carrying a fetus, and not all the calves survive.”

An admission that ticks are one cause of moose mortality. This is the first (that I have seen or read) of MDIFW admitting or better, explaining, how anything that negatively effects the reproduction cycle of the moose will negatively effect the sustainability of the herd. It isn’t just the blood sucking that causes the moose to drop dead from exposure or starvation.

Many parts of Maine have seen tons of snow on the ground this winter. This kind of snowfall also has a negative effect on moose and deer. This is where Kantar suggests he has a better understanding of the ticks than before: “The fall conditions drive the winter tick,” Kantar said. “Our expectation is that the tick count will be down, and that should translate into increased calf survival.”

It is during the Fall that ticks are “questing” – in search of a host body to hang out on during the long winter months. When conditions on the ground seriously disrupt this questing process, ticks die by the millions and thus the overall negative effects of the winter tick on moose are mitigated…at least in the short term. This is why Mr. Kantar is suggesting a good moose calf survival and a need to make adjustments to the herd growth and population.

However, the reporter just can’t leave the “Climate Change” myth out of her reporting: “But biologists hope that the incidence of winter tick is lower because snow came early last fall and the parasite thrives in warmer climates and conditions.”

My wish is that one day, just one reporter would do some homework about the tick and stop perpetuating the Echo Chamber of Climate Change. The winter tick does not thrive in warmer climates and conditions. If that were true, the winter tick would be “thriving” to our south where the climate is always warmer and the conditions the way in which ignorant climate change alarmist present it.

The echo chambers continue to falsely report that because Maine has warmer winters the tick is thriving, when, in fact, this has nothing to do with the growth and sustainability of the winter tick. Science has shown that it would take conditions found in the Arctic to actually kill the tick. Two things drive the survival of the tick and Kantar mentioned one of them.

One is the questing process. As I have already mentioned, when the process of climbing vegetation and waiting for a moose to walk by so they can hitch a ride is seriously effected, fewer ticks will complete their life cycles and will die.

The second condition goes hand in hand with the first – ticks being able to find a host ride. It is important and necessary for the tick to find a host. If conditions are favorable to find a host, but there are fewer hosts to latch onto, tick production is mitigated. I believe Mr. Kantar is attempting to learn the balance between how many moose results in a healthy, relative tick-free existence while making adjustments in line with conditions.

What appears to me as encouraging here is that Kantar’s adjustments in the issuing of moose permits is as close to real time adjustments as you can get. Often reactions by biologists are years too late, making it difficult to understand whether any actions were good or effective.

Here we have a case where the biologist appears to understand that probably the tick questing period was interrupted by early fall snow which should result in an increased survival rate of moose calves – depending on how destructive the winter has been in general. This kind of real time management, so long as that management is based on sound science and not Climate Change mythology, should be a terrific boost for the moose herd and these actions should provide us all with a healthier population of moose to enjoy.

Keep up the good work. Let’s hope it continues.

Share

Fascism We Call Shaping the Future

The other day I was led to a report from Maine prepared by a new legislative, mandated formation of The Land Conservation Task Force. Not surprisingly, the title of this report comes to you as: “Shaping the Next Generation of Land Conservation in Maine.”

What could possibly be wrong with this? I doubt most know.

When any government mandates the formation of a “task force” whose mandate it is to find ways to SHAPE the next generation for any reason, should either run and hide or prepare for oppression. Unfortunately, most choose to run and hide and/or just bury their heads.

I don’t have the time nor the ambition to walk you through this work of fascism, disguised as good community (commune, communism) service…all for the good of all as “shaped” by someone else’s political idealism. I would, however, like to focus on just one part of this communist manifesto.

On Page 20 we find: “Recommendation #5: Target land conservation efforts to effectively protect critical natural resources and help Maine combat and adapt to a changing climate.”

The ignorance that exists within this task force must be for the greater good. As representatives of a brainwashed society, hand picked to serve due to their admiration of “Bread and Circuses,” each member has been thoroughly consumed with the myth of man-caused global warming (they choose to be more comfortable by calling it Climate Change) from the perspective that by living an existence of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, we are causing the earth to warm and all the fake aftereffects.

I suppose we should congratulate the purveyors of such nonsense; those who have profited richly from taking advantage of ignorant taxpayers, the blind and delusional, for successfully perpetuating the taxable lie about a warming climate caused by farting cows and you driving to work to you can pay the way of those who refuse to work – while they trek about in gas-guzzling jets.

However, there is NO hope that the pEOPLE are soon to shed their delusions and do what they should know as the right thing. You either buy into the scam behind this form of Climate Change (yes, capital “Cs”) or you see it for what it really is. I doubt anything I can say will change your mind. But I can try.

Maybe then, you’ll see the authoritarian actions being thrust upon us by eager autocrats who know not what they do. This group of totalitarians have taken it upon themselves, by order of the centralized fascist legislature, to decide what is best for you, your land, the economy of the state, the environment, the climate, and what and how our natural resources should be used or not. They make recommendations which lands, whether yours or theirs, you can access and what you can do with them – and this all from a group’s perspective of how my and your life should be run.

Do you like that?

Bear in mind that these recommendations of what THEY want and how THEY think you and I should live, are partly based on THEIR notion of what they have been brainwashed to believe about Climate Change. This is what they tell us: “Already change has manifest itself through shifting seasons, increased precipitation, introduction of nonnative species and rising sea level. Noticeable impacts include shorter maple tapping seasons, an abundance of ticks and associated diseases, increased coastal erosion and green crabs and other pests that have compromised otherwise robust natural-resource based economies.”

It takes quite the imagination to blame everything they have listed on their “Schindler’s List” as a result of Climate Change. What is a “shifting season?” Is that when Spring is followed by Winter and Summer follows Fall?

I find it laughable that Climate Change causes “introduction of nonnative species.” How does that happen exactly?

Much of this cannot pass a straight face test. Nothing suggested here that the group believes is having “negative” affects on THEIR state, can be proven. It is nothing more than propaganda being passed on to the populace as fact. It is far from true facts and fully supported as false facts.

This is just part of the nonsense being swallowed by an entire culture. But it’s not just this list of made-up fantasies used to promote a lie. It’s the Second Grade level psycho-babble they use in an attempt to sell an idealism that carries worthless meaning. We read: “Maine’s forested landscape provides an important means to lessen the impacts through the sequestration of carbon both in the forest and in products derived from the forest.”

Doesn’t that just make you feel fuzzy all over? Do you know what it is suggesting? It means we must stop cutting trees. Cut down trees can’t “sequester” carbon. GASP!

“Moreover, certain areas and ecosystems have been identified as critical to future adaptation to a changing climate in Maine such as the undeveloped corridor running along Maine’s Western Mountains up through the Allagash and St. John River Valleys and coastal wetlands subject to rising sea levels.”

Oh my! I guess this means we’re all gonna die! What should we do? If we follow their recommendations, we need to take control over and shut down all access to the land that runs from Western Maine, to the Allagash, and through the St. John River Valley. HANDS OFF you carbon causing criminals. That land belongs to the KING…or at least the fascist government who appoints the totalitarians, strongly deluded, members to their fascist task force.

And here’s some more nonsense: “A landscape fragmented by roads, energy infrastructure, dams, and development presents a barrier to many species whose range may shift.”

When it is convenient, these environmentalists claim that species are dying because they are incapable of adapting (shifting) to another “range” or habit. But, when they choose to invoke a claim about species deciding to “shift ranges” then all progress must stop in order to allow such an event. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s much like hunting causes extermination of species and at the same time hunting causes the expansion of species. How is that possible?

“Maintaining landscape-scale connectivity and conserving a network of ecological reserves within a matrix of undeveloped land (including working forests) offers the best chance of retaining a diverse variety of plants and animals.”

I emboldened all the key phrases that I’m sure came right out of the book of radical Environmentalism. PUKE!

This horse manure continues with no end in sight. It’s sustainable development, it’s Agenda 21, it’s from UNEP, it’s Environmentalism, it’s Fascism, it’s Totalitarianism all rolled up in a nice neat wrap. Nobody takes the time to exam the words to discover the real meaning behind this overreach into our lives, having a group of unelected, government appointed socialists dictating what is best for you and I.

I can’t speak for you but I don’t need anybody telling me how I should live and what is best for me. I do my own thinking. I just wish more of you would give it a try and tell these well-intentioned, dictatorial, oppressive, tyrants to back off.

Go SHAPE your own lifestyle and leave mine alone. I don’t want nor do I need any of your “help.” Especially this kind.

Share

New Maine IFW Commissioner is a Birdwatcher…Tweet, Tweet, Tweet

That just about covers it from what I can gather. I’ve read just about every puff piece that has been written about Maine’s new commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and it appears that when we were promised that her agenda would be “revealed” after the nomination and election process was completed, the Press/Media/Echo-chamber has decided that Judy Camuso is a birdwatcher. I’m afraid that qualification will do little to grow the number of licensed hunters, ward off repeated attacks and lawsuits from environmentalists and animal rights quacks, solve the missing deer herd dilemma, reduce the overgrown black bear population, or mitigate winter ticks that are destroying the moose herd, while increasing the interest in hunting, fishing, and trapping.

But birdwatching is about the extent of it. Either no member of the lamestream press has enough intestinal fortitude to ask any tough questions or Camuso is faster than a speeding bullet able to dodge questions better than any slick politician.

Oh, we are beginning to hear sputtering of how with some “magic beans” to plant, Commissioner Camuso is going to “reach across the aisle” and create the best version of Kumbaya you ever did hear as the magic bean stalk is going to grow tall because the Left and the Right are going to hold hands (of course singing Kumbaya…or is it I Want to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony?) and water the bean stalk together. AMEN! Praise the Lord!. I need to take a “selfie.”

In an article I read just the other day, once again we are supposed to swallow the notion that what Camuso did during the last anti-bear hunting referendum defines who the person is and what she is going to do. Really? The article took a few liberties and wrote: “…but Camuso believes during the bear referendum she proved her commitment to maintaining hunting practices, including those used to manage the state’s 35,000 black bears. Camuso gave countless talks defending the department’s position… She also vehemently defended the department’s right to take a position on a citizen’s initiative.”

She was almost revealed in a way when the author of this piece took the liberty to state that Camuso “proved her commitment” to hunting practices. However, it was more accurately spelled out that she was very good at defending the rights and positions of the Department of which she was not the head of. And she promoted the position of the department at that time while under the direction of Chandler Woodcock and a governor that didn’t buy into environmentalism so much.

In the article she further explains how she was “committed to our staff,” and swelled with pride to say that even though it was claimed she had death threats during the bear referendum she, “…managed to also hold on to support from the naturalist community.”

I mean, seriously! Think about it…if possible anymore. Why would anyone think with the election of a very far Left governor, that such a politically biased person would appoint a director of the MDIFW who was not able and willing to promote the agendas and ideology of that governor?

I wish some bold member of the press (oxymoron) would simply ask Camuso if push came to shove, will she stand up for the North American Wildlife Management Plan, where game animals are managed as a resources for surplus harvest by hunting, fishing, and trapping, or will she manage according to the high-pressure social demands of environmentalists and animal rights degenerates. It does make a difference.

The Left believes you can manage wildlife at healthy levels by leaving them alone; meaning no hunting. Does the new commissioner believe that is possible? It does make a difference. It can’t be both ways, especially when one side does all the giving while the other does all the taking.

All you idealists can toss out the window any hope that Camuso is going to get the environmentalists to “understand” the hunting community. Understanding is a noun that’s been missing from the vocabulary of the Left for far too long. They do not have any understanding of real science or any notion of a compromise. They want what they want and they will get it no matter the price they and others must pay.

The only real hope in a future that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping is that a government fish and wildlife department does what has been proven successful for many decades and not follow in the path of Environmentalism that practices false Scientism.

I have yet to see anyone who espouses to birdwatching, hiking, kayaking and many other outdoor pursuits and DOES NOT HUNT have a good understanding of the value of this hunting heritage or the toxic onslaught from the Left against hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Nothing would make me any happier than to find out the things I am believing to be true about the new commissioner are completely wrong.

Please make me wrong! It is the only hope of a future that includes hunting, trapping, and fishing.

Share

Maine’s Deer Yard Slaughters

It seems that all I am hearing about of late is the unbelievable slaughters taking place in some of Maine’s winter deer yards. Coyotes/coywolves are having a free-for-all feast. While anyone with a brain should know the implications of deep snow and prolonged deep snow, what I want to know is whether or not the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is having any regrets about issuing a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” (doe permits) that contributed to a substantial increase in the deer harvest this past Fall? I recall I asked if MDIFW considered the possibility of such a winter as this one BEFORE they issued the ADPs.

I doubt it.

Maine hunters should prepare for another multi-year drought of deer for hunting purposes – blamed, of course, on Climate Change. Bwhahahahahahahaah, Bwhahahahahahahahaha

Share

Maine’s New Commissioner Intends to Recruit New Hunters, Anglers

In a Sun Journal article about Maine’s new commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (sorry, at this time the link in Google search is no good. Perhaps at a later time if you search “Meet the New Wildlife Boss: Judy Camuso” you will have better luck.), it is stated about Camuso that, “Her top goals are to recruit new people into the agency with the “Citizen Science Program,” recruit more hunters and anglers, and improve communication with the public about how they can participate in outdoor programs.” (emboldening added)

According to the latest report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the number of hunters and fishermen has seriously declined. From a high of 14.1 million hunters nationwide, that number is now down to 11.1 million.

According to this latest survey and previous ones, some of the major factors that have caused a drop in participation are, land access reductions, available time to hunt and fish, and opposition from environmentalists who oppose hunting and fishing.

I should like to take a moment and point out that although the same survey shows an increase in “wildlife watching” the numbers are misleading if not downright dishonest. Let me simply state that any hunter or fisherman is automatically labeled as a wildlife watcher whether that was their intent or not. So the numbers presented are not an exact representation of the number of people who purposely set out to “wildlife watch.”

If it is a top priority of Commissioner Camuso to recruit more hunters and fishermen, she has a monumental task before her. It has often been stated that although there may be somewhere around 10% of the nationwide population who hunt and fish, an overwhelming majority of people support hunting and fishing as part of a viable wildlife management program. Sadly, that support is dwindling.

One has to wonder what, exactly, can Camuso do to recruit sportsmen, when so many things are now stacked against such an attempt.

If land access is a big wall of prevention, what can the commissioner do to convince land owners to “tear down that wall?” Are there incentives worth pursuing that would prompt a landowner to offer access to their land for hunting and fishing? Some have tried. Few have succeeded. Are there fresh, new approaches to this dilemma? Maybe she has ideas that will work. Let’s hope.

I’m not sure how a wildlife commissioner would approach the problem of sportsmen claiming they don’t have time to hunt and fish like they used to or would like to. Economics is the driver of many things and when a person has to work to make ends meet, how do you convince them that they need to take the time off work to hunt and/or fish?

Perhaps the lack of motivation to take some time off is prompted by lousy hunting and fishing as well as a tiring of the opposition Maine has faced often in recent years from environmentalists and animal rights activists willing to spend millions of dollars to put an end to hunting and fishing. This all tends to spell more doom than encourage more participation.

Which brings me to the third part in this discussion. It would seem to me that if Maine could do a better job at providing bountiful game populations, mainly deer, recruiting would be easier. Deer hunting is really the cash cow but you wouldn’t know if from past management practices and the politics behind them. However, try as they may, the deck is stacked against such an approach.

With the exception of deer, Maine has an abundant bear population that needs to be better controlled. The turkey population is near out of control, judging by the number of landowner complaints and the visual of seeing turkeys overrunning peoples’ property. Moose have always been a favorite of both hunters and wildlife watchers, but managers don’t seem to understand the balance between a healthy moose population, void of deadly winter ticks, and the cash cow that comes from a moose lottery and moose gawking.

So generally speaking, Maine has an abundance of bear, turkey, and moose and yet there is a need for hunters to take this game but few are willing. Why? I hope Camuso has some answers. History shows us that public support is lost when that public sees these valuable game species as nothing but nuisances.

It would seem plausible to me that with so much game (not considering the deer) that’s one deterrent not missing and that the Department should be doing more to get hunters in pursuit. So far nothing has worked. Does Camuso have something up her sleeves? Let’s hope so.

I believe the biggest obstacle is the opposition that exists in this modern culture that have their ideas about animals out of skew. This includes some of the employees at MDIFW. While this opposition may not be that large in numbers – but those numbers are growing – they are well-funded and very vocal. Ongoing threats of lawsuits dampens the courage of any new commissioner regardless of their intentions.

Note: Camuso mentions that several in her department will be retiring and she will have jobs to fill. If she is serious about recruiting, she should make sure those that are hired are not environmental activists anchored in animal rights; that they are believers in the North American Model of Wildlife Management and that hunting, fishing, and trapping are integral and necessary parts of the management policy. It’s time to weed out those more interested in the rights of animals and their protection against hunting and fishing.

How do you curb these threats of lawsuits and do what you know is the right and scientific thing in a wildlife management plan?

The Maine Legislature stopped a recent bill that would have provided hunters with a chance to hunt bear in the Spring. When will the MDIFW stop caving in to the demands (always, always, always) of the Maine Guides Association and do what is scientifically right instead of what is politically best? And while I’m on this discussion, when will MDIFW stop attempting to responsibly manage wildlife when all decisions are too heavily influenced by social demands void of sound science?

Judy Camuso probably has great intentions when she says she wants to recruit more hunters and fishermen. If she is sincere about this and determined enough, there has to first be management changes within the department. Is she prepared to do that? Can she? Maybe?

During the latest anti-bear referendum, we got to see Camuso in action, working for the MDIFW, convincing the Maine population that baiting bear was a necessary part of bear management. It was a great job done and perhaps the one act in many years that gave hunters hope that proper and necessary management took a front seat to the demands of environmentalism. That act probably did more to save, or perhaps recruit, more hunters than anything else the department has done in many years.

Is there more where that came from? Was Judy Camuso’s actions at that time driven by her own perspective of things or was she just following orders from then commissioner Chandler Woodcock? I think we are going to find out…or at least I hope so and the sooner the better.

The new commissioner should take immediate action to save the hunters and anglers Maine already has and then head down that road that will actually recruit more of them.

A monumental task and good luck.

Share

Can We Make Schools Safer By Using the Same Totalitarian Demands for More Government Control?

*Editor’s Note* – This is not an attempt at discrediting David Trahan. He does great and useful work with the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. He is to be commended and applauded for the effort he puts in to right wrongs and carry out the wishes of the members of SAM. In my work, I work tirelessly attempting to cause people to see the wrongs, the insanity of how we have been programmed to operate. As a result, I may come across as harsh and/or unfair to some. It is not my attempt to attack the person but to reveal and address truth and to cause people to think for themselves by giving alternative or additional thoughts to a problem.

In a second effort at addressing gun control and public safety, David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), pens another article to address school safety. You can read Trahan’s first editorial about “Red Flag Laws” and my comments here.

Trahan writes: “…policy makers and Americans have not focused on coming together to institute universal security changes at all schools capable of stopping or minimizing the success of future attacks.” Huh? What does that mean, if anything?

What are “universal security changes?” Are they anything like “universal background checks?” Why are they called universal? In this context is the word used as an adjective or a noun? Are these actions “universal” because any oppressive laws were devised by a group of like minded people? Or do these same laws have an effect on everybody? Perhaps both. If so, maybe it is more correct to state that we have failed to come together to “institute universal, universal security changes.”

Regardless, the statement sounds more like a politician who refuses to give an honest answer with any meaning.

In this same article, Trahan explains his previous attempts at addressing school safety by formulating groups to conduct “studies” as well as creating a task force that will listen to complaints and examine recommendations from these “study” groups.

Useless!

None of that worked and so it appears the solution is to try it again and change the name a little bit.

Isn’t it insanity to think that you can fix a rigged system by working with the rigged system to fix the rigging? A system is rigged because it doesn’t want outside interference. In order that any government entity can continue to operate within their rigging they must learn how to continue to fool the people into thinking something is being done. An example of that might be just what you are seeing here – a call for “universal” security changes. Even Trahan tells readers, “…because most of the report was made confidential in an effort to protect vulnerable schools, we have no way of knowing whether our schools are safer…” How convenient, but that’s how rigged systems continue to operate.

He also writes: “They should be directed by the Government Oversight Committee to examine statewide whether we have adequate school security.”

Ah yes. That “Government Oversight Committee.” Ah yes. The insanity of it all. Government anything is a corrupt useless existence of nonsense. Let’s completely remove government interference and then maybe something constructive could happen. The insanity shows itself when people lament the curses of government and then in the next breath cry out to the same government demanding an answer. Isn’t this the product of the Hegelian Dialectic – create a problem, embellish it, and rush in with an answer? Ah, brainwashing! Isn’t it also a full display of cognitive dissonance – the inability to understand and relate rational thought in making decisions? Ah, programming!

I’ve written often about how so-called Second Amendment supporters make hypocrites of themselves when they actively seek “reasonable” restrictions to a granted right that has no restrictions. In their arguments to support the right to keep and bear arms, they always fall back on the theory that gun laws only limit the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to stop violent crime. And yet, they disregard that same philosophy when it comes to things like school safety. Are we to believe that in this instance laws designed to make schools safer, that is for the law-abiding, will only affect the violent criminals that might enter a school and do harm?

Perhaps if we exerted as much energy into addressing the real problem in this perverted, violent, immoral society to end the needless violence, violence that is grown and perpetuated in this out-of-control society of progressives who seek more decadence and immorality, then much of what totalitarians, disabled by cognitive dissonance, are now attempting to do would become unnecessary. But that’s never been the American way. The American way is to somehow try to find a cure for the symptoms so that they can continue, uninterrupted, carrying out their indecent and obscene lifestyles.

But, it will never happen that way. So, all you people who know not what you do, you keep working hard at getting those “UNIVERSAL” changes that are going to make everything better.

I think creating concentration camps was a “universal” change.

Share

Isn’t Man a “Natural” Predator?

I was reading a very interesting article yesterday about how authorities undertook a deer cull on Mount Desert Island (Acadia National Park, Maine) back in the 1960s. It seems that once hunting was halted in the 1930s, deer grew unchecked and became a real nuisance to where something had to be done.

A couple of things caught my eye while reading that somebody needs to point out because it contributes to the problems associated with wildlife management that has become more of an act of Scientism as well as Romance Biology.

In the very first paragraph, we find: “Lately the most frequent “predators” of deer on Mount Desert Island have been motorized vehicles. But for several years in the 1960s, before coyotes migrated to the island, Acadia National Park rangers used rifles and live traps to fill the role of natural predators and cull the herd.” (emboldening added)

Lost in this quest to “save the planet” of which environmentalism is centered around, is the fact that man is a predator and a natural one. The CREATOR did not put plants and animals on this planet for the sole pleasure of environmentalists. As a matter of fact, it was the CREATOR’S intention that Man should have “dominion” over the plants and animals and to use them as a resource including sustenance.

This active Romance Biology believes that man should be removed from any equation about balance within an ecosystem and that the task can be accomplished with just letting things run their course…excluding man. Just how do you do that?

The NATURAL PREDATOR, Man, assumed their role as an “apex” predator and did what was perceived by Man, that natural predator, as a necessity; even though how the culling was done was not the intended way and best use of a natural resource.

It was around 1957 when a park “naturalist” estimated the deer population on Mount Desert Island (MDI) was between 1,000 and 1,500 animals. (The author of the piece chose to incorrectly call the deer “individuals.”)

It was thought that something had to be done to reduce that overgrown population of deer. It was decided to “live trap” and “shoot” the deer (no hunting) in order “to bring the starving herd into proper balance with nature.”

Even when misguided groups and individuals choose to assume the belief that Man is not a part of anything to do with Nature, it is impossible to get away from the very foundation of the need to manage and control certain aspects of our ecosystem in order to bring things into a socially determined “proper balance.”

Because there is no such thing as a “balance of nature” as is presented in propaganda and scientismic Romance Biology, man, who according to the environmentalists cannot be a part of the equation, always steps up to manipulate the existence to bring it in line with perspective ideals of whoever is in charge at the moment. And therefore we have the current definition of “proper balance.”

The hypocrisy here is that even those espousing to a “natural balance” cannot really believe it possible because they are always at work to bring that balance in line with their ideals. It makes little sense.

It is also inexplicable how, to some, it is acceptable to torture an animal, to capture it, or pay men to slaughter them, and yet see hunting, fishing, and trapping as inhumane, unfair, cruel, and something that needs to be stopped.

I think when push comes to shove it really isn’t about whether there is a natural balance, or whether man should be a part of the nature of things, but that a perverted sense that animals should share in the same existence as man, and thus hunting them for sport, food, or trophies, is wrong; but slaughtering them to fulfill ideals is acceptable.

Strange.

Share

It’s Not Just a Hunter Who Harasses Wildlife

I was reading an article this morning online from the website CentralMaine.com about how social media has contributed to providing realtime locations of rare wildlife species, followed by an influx of eager watchers, photographers, and perhaps even the occasional hunter.

It reminded me of a true story about two hunters/fishermen who spotted a rare bird and the very responsible thing that was done.

Several years ago, these two hunters who were on a fishing trip in the north-central region of Maine, opted not to go out in their canoe one fine morning to fly-fish for brook trout due to rather windy conditions. Instead, one of the two suggested they take a ride to where he had taken a view of some ledges in the far distance during the trip in. What he had in mind was a chance to try out his new spotting scope.

The two guys made the relatively short drive from the campground down the dusty dirt road and located an excellent spot in which one could easily see the cliffs, but only very sharp eyes and/or binoculars/spotting scope might see any birds utilizing the cliffs for prey or nesting.

The man who had the spotting scope mentioned that he was hoping maybe the cliffs were home to some peregrine falcons.

The other guy had neither scope nor binoculars but had excellent eyesight.

After a few minutes, the man without enhanced viewing mechanisms, said, “Hey, I think I can occasionally see some birds flying about in front of those ledges! They must be pretty big birds if I can see them with my bare eyes.”

The other man had been looking in his scope. What his companion didn’t know is that he had already spotted the birds and was watching them trying to figure out just what kind of birds they were.

After perhaps an hour of viewing, each taking turns looking through the scope, it was decided that what was seen certainly appeared to be a pair of golden eagles, even though, to their knowledge, there were no “known” golden eagles in the state of Maine.

Excited about the prospects of what had been seen, they agreed that they should keep their mouths shut until they could get more information. Perhaps, they thought, they were the only ones to have spotted this nesting pair.

They finished the fishing trip and headed home at the end of the weekend. On Monday morning, the man who owned the scope, called the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and reported what he had seen.

After a bit of conversation, the person at MDIFW told the informant that the department was aware of the nesting pair and that they were working with the landowner in hopes of offering as much protection as possible in order to help facilitate a successful breeding and fledging. He was asked to please not share this information until the event had run its course.

And that is exactly what the two men did, even though they wanted so much to tell as many people as they could.

I know this story to be true because I was one of the two men. If others should be more the same way perhaps things would be a bit different and there would be less harassment of wildlife.

I’m not holding my breath.

Share

Advice and Suggestions to the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife

A reader sent me a copy of the Maine Sportsman, specifically George Smith’s article about his “advise” to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). After reading it, I thought perhaps I would offer something similar. Sometimes I am accused of being only critical of the MDIFW seldom offering constructive criticism or even suggestions on better or different ways in which to do things.

Smith writes of the need to “unlock that door” that prohibits visitors access to the commissioner of the MDFIW. I understand the concept and how convenient it would be to just “drop in” someday and chat with the commissioner. I would like to think that the real situation playing at the offices of the MDIFW has more to do with security than a want to lock themselves up and separate them from the public. I might be wrong. We do live in a strange time in which most people are always aware and subjected to enhanced security measures.

TURKEYS

George writes about what he would do about turkey management and the role that hunting plays in that management. For the most part I think he brings up some good points, i.e. too many turkeys, too few hunters, and the barrier of license fees that prohibit more people from trying or getting involved in turkey hunting and harvesting a turkey that would aide the MDIFW with their management goals.

Originally, I had thought that Smith’s idea of including turkey hunting as part of a Big Game Hunting License wouldn’t fly because the MDIFW would not be willing to give up that revenue from turkey license fees. Is there a trade-off here? Will somehow opening up the turkey season to reduced cost (and loss of fees to MDIFW) be made up in other ways? Perhaps.

I think that consensus must be reached as to whether there are too many turkeys and how critical it is that turkey populations be reduced. If, more people gained interest in turkey hunting, perhaps down the road, as populations came more in line with management goals, turkey license fees could be levied again. If a reduction in the number of turkeys is urgently needed, and I think if we haven’t gotten there yet we soon will, then the MDIFW must do what is expedient to make the reductions in numbers necessary to be responsible for the healthy management of these game birds.

FISHERIES

Fisheries is far from my strong point and knowledge base. I am not at all that qualified to offer the MDIFW advice on how to specifically manage the fisheries in the State of Maine. How fortunate for some.

MOOSE

Odd isn’t it, in many ways, that some are opposed to the reduction of moose populations to mitigate the winter ticks’ destruction of the moose herd but think nothing about advocating the complete destruction of a herd of deer to get rid of Lyme disease. Perhaps if more evidence pointed a finger at the health risk to humans from the winter tick, mindsets might change.

I have written extensively on Maine’s moose and what I believe to be the need to bring the moose population in Maine to levels that seriously reduce the presence and perpetuation of winter ticks that are inhumanely and unnecessarily causing moose to suffer and die during long and cold winters.

Smith laments about the loss of businesses associated with moose watching now that Mother Nature took over where wildlife management failed. During the heyday of the overgrown moose populations, some scrambled and took advantage, as any good entrepreneur might do, looking for ways to exploit the abundant moose for profit. It might have been fun while it lasted but the lesson that should be learned here might be at what price do we exploit any wildlife animal for lucre? As grown adults we should see that having enough moose around that many got into the business of moose watching tours was but a flash in that pan. Time to move on. We have learned that attempting to grow moose in numbers for capitalistic enterprises is a terrible thing to do to the animal – part of the downside of attempting to manage any species while being driven by social demands.

More recent studies are suggesting what some of us knew a long time ago – that too many moose was the cause of the aggressive expanse of winter ticks resulting in high mortality rates on the large beast.

The MDIFW should move quickly to determine at what population Maine’s moose will be most healthy while still providing opportunities for Maine residents to harvest a moose and fill their freezers.

I suggest that the MDIFW, once establishing moose populations, based on sound science and not social demands, issue enough permits or a long enough season to bring the population under a control that reduces the tick infestation. Once that is accomplished, permit for the future can be issued accordingly. Letting Mother Nature do the job is not only irresponsible but is a waste of a terrific natural resource.

DEER

Smith tells readers that the MDIFW stopped managing deer in northern Maine and only “manages” moose. I don’t know if this is actually an official position taken by the MDIFW, but it appears there is at least quite a bit of evidence to support that statement.

Smith claims that because Maine failed to protect winter habitat in Northern and Western Maine, the deer herd “was lost.” I concur the deer herd was lost but I think it had other influences than just a loss of habitat. A lot of things have changed over the years, one thing being the behavior of the deer. While deer are learning how to adapt to that loss of winter habitat, we humans remain locked in our unadaptable behavior of insisting on things being the way they were when our fathers hunted the whitetails.

Each time I have listened to the worn out excuse that deer have disappeared because of loss of winter habitat, I have always asked why, if that is true, thousands of acres of old winter habitat, still in winter habitat condition, is void of deer? Never an answer.

Loss of winter habitat in the classical sense, can and does have an effect on the deer population. Attempting to somehow “manage” deer to return to unwanted winter habitat, is an example of managers failing to learn and adjust to changes of the deer population and their habits. When we see this failure, one can’t help but wonder how much we can rely on the deer managers “estimate” of deer populations and other management shortcomings.

We failed to learn quickly enough that attempting to manage moose populations at high enough levels that tourism benefitted, the moose herd suffered terribly due to exposure and anemia from blood sucking winter ticks. Deer populations are suffering but perhaps in different ways because the ecosystem in which they have traditionally comfortably inhabited have and are changing. The deer are adapting as best they can but our management tactics are not. Evidently the preference is to give up.

Too many moose compete with deer. Too many large predators kill deer and fawns and this is challenging the stability of the deer population and in some places we are witnessing the unsustainability of a deer herd. Are we to just blame it on loss of winter habitat and Climate Change or should we be responsible stewards of our wild game animals?

If we are to mitigate the cause for the lack of deer in portions of Northern and Western Maine, isn’t the responsible thing to do is to reduce the bear and coyote populations to give the deer a chance? If we simply stop deer management because loss of habitat and Climate Change is the excuse, what then can we expect of all of our game and wildlife species going forward?

Managers have a responsibility to care for all of these game species. Giving up on one species in certain areas, tells me that there is lack of knowledge and poor management skills involved. The epitome of wildlife management failures is giving in to some man’s fictitious notion that the globe is warming and the northern border of the whitetail deer’s habitat is moving south, while our neighbors to the north continue to work at managing their deer. If Climate Change is causing such chaos that is forcing the destruction of habitat for deer, then it makes sense that other more northern species are migrating south according to the changes. Is this happening? No. A warming climate, as claimed, should be reducing the affects of severe winters. Is that happening? No.

There’s little more that managers can do to stop the perceived reduction of winter habit and deer habitat in general short of demanding more totalitarian tactics to take property and property rights away from people and corporations. It’s easy, from afar, to stand in judgement over landowners, demanding they relinquish their rights as property owners in order to enhance the habitat of any wild animal. The tough part to deer management is maximizing what is left and working in earnest to make the best of what we have. Even if deer densities in Northern and Western Maine aren’t at ideal levels, is that reason enough to simply walk away and say, we tried?

There is no need to kill off all the coyotes/wolves in Maine or reduce bear populations to levels that give us more deer than are needed to balance a very valuable resource. All that is stopping this effort is the MDIFW’s insistence on caving to social demands. I suppose to them in the short term it is easier to cave in than to stand up to those demands supported by strong scientific evidence. And that may be the actual problem. Does the MDIFW have or want the strong scientific evidence?

BEAR

The MDIFW has a very good bear study program. Some claim that program is the envy of all other fish and wildlife departments. Only radical animal rights groups or individuals would argue that there are too many bear. The MDIFW publicly admits they need to reduce the bear population, but so far, have done little to solve that problem. Perhaps they are moving at a speed that only politics and social demands allow them. Time for change.

Having too many bears presents several problems – public safety and a disruption of population goals of other species such as deer and moose. Fortunately, bear hibernate, otherwise God only knows what kind of destruction they would wreak on weakened deer in deer wintering areas.

Some studies suggest that the presence of bear has more negative impact on deer than do coyotes/wolves. Maybe the current studies that the MDIFW are conducting on moose and deer will help us gain better understanding on this concept.

Regardless, it appears Maine must reduce bear populations. But how? One problem that jumps out immediately is the power of the guides and outfitters placing demands on the MDIFW to manage bears according to their wishes that would best maximize their business profits. While it is understandable that this is important to the private enterprises, should the MDIFW continue to allow increased public safety concerns and actual reductions in deer populations, and perhaps even moose, simply to appease these groups? Of course not, but when will the MDIFW move to do anything about it? Perhaps the time is now.

Like with turkey hunting, Maine needs to find easier and less expensive ways to encourage more hunters to take up the challenge. Hunters that have little interest in bear hunting might change their mind if hunting bear were part of a Big Game License all the time during open season on bear.

Bag limits should be raised. The late summer bear hunt should have a minimum of a two-bear limit – perhaps three in some areas. If that doesn’t do the trick, then a Spring bear hunt may be necessary. Regulations can be employed to mitigate the killing of cubs as has been proven in other places that have Spring bear hunts.

The MIDFW has done a respectable job of working to ward off the radical animal rights groups bent on closing down bear hunting. They should increase and improve this effort to include everything they do with wildlife management. Two bear referendums have proven that maintaining a passive posture and making management decisions based on social demands is not only irresponsible, but ridiculous, almost childish. If wildlife managers and their administration don’t have or believe the science necessary to responsibly managed their wildlife, they should be out of a job. There should be little room given to social demands when it comes to scientifically managing game.

OPERATIONS

There are certain aspects of running a fish and game department that should be within the control of the commissioner, who, of course, answers to the governor. Open and closed seasons should be within the control of the commissioner. That person, along with the managers and biologists in the department, are the ones who should know what is going on and what is needed, not the Humane Society of the United States, other animal rights groups, or even the Legislature. Such social and political powers spoil any scientific approach at wildlife management. It may take an act of the Legislature to effect such changes.

We live in a time where these powerful animal rights and environmentalists have gained control over our factories of higher indoctrination. The result of this is now showing up in our fish and game departments where the concerns are more about the “rights” of animals and away from a consumptive, use of a natural resources approach to wildlife management.

Scientifically, it has been proven that the North American Model of Wildlife Management works. Those opposed to this form of wildlife management know this and have been working tireless to “change the way wildlife management is discussed.” Along with this has come the social demands to place equal rights and protections on animals as are given to humans.

Outdoor advocates, hunters, trappers, fishermen, as well as all those who understand and believe in the necessity of consumptive use to best manage and control wildlife, should demand that the commissioner be more selective and demanding of those that are hired as biologists and wildlife managers. Candidates should be screened as to their idealism and positions on animal rights and hunting, fishing, and trapping. To responsibly utilize hunting and fishing as part of the overall plans for wildlife management, cannot have room for animal rights advocates or those opposed to this system.

Some have called for money from general taxation to support the MDIFW. It is my opinion this would be a very big mistake. First of all, before any MORE money is dumped in the lap of this department, a complete audit should be undertaken so that all will know exactly what every penny is spent on and where every penny comes from to run the department. If more money is needed, then that has to come from fee increases and not from general taxation. Here’s why.

With money sent to the MDIFW from general taxation, along with it will be demands from the general taxpayer for bigger representation. This opens the door even further for more infiltration by environmentalists who want to “change the way we discuss wildlife management.”

We have seen this already. Where once the MDIFW used to be the department of fish and game, other states have gotten rid of their fish and game names completely, replaced with departments of natural resources.

With a weakening of the managerial understanding and knowledge of how wildlife management should run, further expedites the dreaded end to responsible wildlife management, replaced by VooDoo Science and Romance Biology.

The only way the MDIFW can survive as a bonafide fish and game department is if it remains out of the control of Environmentalism.

The MDIFW does many things well. Some things they have little control over. Certainly there is room for improvement and if others, like me, realize that if we don’t do something to change those things that are sending us in the wrong direction and away from the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the good that we enjoy now will soon be lost. Let’s not let that happen.

Share