November 15, 2018

Animals Are NOT People

Recently, an animal protectionist voiced concern about the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Maine. We all should be concerned about the spread of this deadly to animal disease (it has of yet not proven that it can jump over and infect humans). But, animals, as much as we care about their welfare, even those animals given to us by our Creator as a natural resource to enjoy from viewing to table fare, are not people and should not be treated as such. In doing so, lines of priority in the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all get blurred even to a point of perversion.

The article begins by making an association of equality or even preference of the animal over that of man by stating: “If we had a chance to help a human or an animal, why wouldn’t we do it? If we knew that the situation could easily get worse — in some cases, far worse — why wouldn’t we do what we could now instead of waiting?”

The first priority, in a natural setting of existence understanding, should always be that of man. Because Man was granted “dominion” over all the plants and animals by our Creator, the first concern is with people. Animals become secondary and of concern in this case because man’s existence is directly affected.

The perversion shows when the author uses the relative pronoun “who” in reference to a deer or deer collectively: “I would have thought that the DIFW biologist’s primary concern would have been the suffering and death of the animals who might contract CWD.” and, “…the feeding of deer who might have been exposed to CWD…”

The importance of this misuse of pronouns isn’t so much that the writing is grammatically incorrect, something a “published author from Bristol” should know, it is the exposure of the indoctrination that has perverted the minds of millions who insist on categorizing animals at the same existence level as that of man. How sick is that….really?

It is impossible to rightly attack any problem or establish any kind of rule or regulation in the management of any animal when the animal is not placed in the correct hierarchy according to relative importance based on the existence of Man. Because our animal-perverse society has muddied the differences between man and animal, such distinctions of utmost importance are lost and decisions rendered ended up being acts of perversion in their own right.

This misguided perversion shows when the author takes issue with comments made by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) about the concerns of the hunting industry should CWD have a devasting effect on the deer and moose. The author chooses to disregard the common sense association that their concerns over the health and welfare of the animals exist in unspoken words from the quotes that were handpicked.

Perhaps the upside of this is that the MDIFW sees the potential risks of the spread of disease as being first and foremost a concern for that of the people and their welfare and secondly to the animals and their health…or maybe not.

But, make no mistake about it, CWD is extremely problematic and the author does bring up some good points to consider.

It is impossible to stop the spread of the disease but steps can be taken to slow it down. The MDIFW already has mandatory regulations in place to help in that regard. Some of those steps may need to be strengthened if the disease shows signs of actually making its way into Maine.

Because CWD prions can find their way into the commercial marketing of urine-based scents and lures, I agree with the author that they should be banned.

I think the jury is still out on feeding of deer as to whether or not congregated feeding actually causes the spread of disease any more than in a natural setting due to the make-up of the disease itself. There are some trade-off issues that need to be considered when it comes to feeding deer, but the bottom line is that CWD will destroy the deer and moose herds and thus destroy the hunting industry as well as wildlife viewing.

As might be spoken by any avid totalitarian, animal rights activist, the following statement should be of concern to all: “It needs nothing less than the force of law.” 

As our collectivist society works harder and harder at destroying their own free existence, avidly calling on a fascist government (force of law) to rule with an iron fist should be of concern for all…but isn’t.

As with any of this talk, based on utter ignorance of facts, media echo chambers will continue to repeat misguided claims and false information without actually doing any real research to understand the creation and history of CWD. It’s a shame really but nothing more than a reflection of the automatonic existence that has been created for all of us.

As a brilliant man recently shared, with Collectivism comes collective ignorance and stupidity. Collectivism ensures like existence. How frightfully boring!

Share

Anti-Hunting Mental Drool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Share

And The Bear and Moose “Instant” Harvest Data Is………?

The baiting season for black bears is over. The black bear hunting season with hounds has been ongoing since September 10 and will run until October 26. Black bears can still be taken during the regular deer hunting season.

The first week of moose hunting for Zones 1-6, 10, 11, 18, 19, 27, 29 ended September 29th.

With the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife promising that they would have virtually “instant” tagging data, why haven’t they published any of this information? MDIFW extolled the benefits to hunters and the department but evidently, those benefits must be prioritized to MDIFW only and they will wield their full control over the wishes of some of us and withhold that data until such time as it is beneficial to them.

Business as usual I guess.

And how much did WE pay to have this new system???

Isn’t the Department required by law to share this data? Or do we have to beg to get it?

I’m still waiting for a web page on the MDIFW site that is live, i.e. that when a tag is registered digitally, it shows up immediately on a page that can be viewed by everyone…at any time.

We have the technology!!!!!!!!!

As an aside: Maine is in the middle of the busiest time of the year with hunting seasons. The state is busy, busy, busy with bears, moose, turkey, upland birds, migratory birds, and small game and we get to find out that MDIFW has completed their bald eagle survey.

Nice!

 

Share

Moose Attack People More than Wolves and Bears Combined?

I have to say this is a first. Yesterday, I read a good article about moose and moose hunting, that included some history and a bit of behavioral perspective on this large critter. As part of the picture the author was attempting to create of the moose, he began by stating that moose are not usually an “aggressive” animal but can be “provoked” or “frightened” to behave that way. I’ll have to agree with that and here’s an example:

A friend of mine who goes to deer hunting camp with me every year, one day was hunting when he came upon a young bull moose standing in the middle of a swampy area. It happened to be standing where my friend wanted to walk. He began messing with the moose putting his rifle over his head and pretending to have a rack of antlers and making other odd movements.

Consequently, the moose moved on and disappeared over a ridge at the edge of the swamp. The hunter proceeded on his way when all of a sudden he heard a loud crash. Turning, the same moose was approaching him from behind with what one would not jokingly call “aggressive” behavior.

But what was also contained in this article was a continuation of that aggressive behavior disclaimer that read: “In terms of raw numbers, they attack more people than bears and wolves combined, but usually with only minor consequences.”

That has to be a first for me. I’ve never heard, read, or anything else anything resembling serious discussion that moose attack more people than bears and wolves combined. Even with “minor consequences” we almost never hear anything about anyone being “attacked” by a moose. Wolves and bear for certain, but not moose. I’m curious where this author got his information.

I began doing some research to see what I could find to disprove or substantiate this claim. As much as I find Wikipedia to be an unreliable resource (I might use it as a starting point while researching), I ended up on Wikipedia looking for information about moose attacks on people. It appears this author copy and pasted word for word what was written in Wikipedia about aggressive moose behavior. Wiki’s words are: “Moose are not usually aggressive towards humans, but can be provoked or frightened to behave with aggression. In terms of raw numbers, they attack more people than bears and wolves combined, but usually with only minor consequences.” (More than these sentences can be found copied word for word in this article. However, because Wiki is an open source resource, it is possible the author was the one who contributed this information to Wiki.)

As with a lot of what Wiki writes, none of this is substantiated with resources to support this claim. A little read searching and we know that in Alaska, there are three times more moose than bears. Moose number approximately 175,000, bears (grizzly and black) number about 130,000, and there are around 11,000 wolves in Alaska.

When you examine the demographics of each animal, it might make sense that there are more moose attacks, especially when you consider that people attempt to approach a moose for photo taking and other stupid reasons. But I will have to seriously question the reporting of “attacks” by moose, bears, and wolves on people globally.

It is a bit dishonest to copy and paste information that is not substantiated (and spending a fair amount of time on this subject I could not come close to proving this claim). The claim is so broad it is impossible to prove. It might have been better to simply state that moose can become aggressive and perhaps offer some sensible tips on how not to piss off a moose.

Share

An Epiphany Outside of Environmentalism’s “New Approach” to Wildlife Management

With very little effort and a clear, open mind, it is obvious that when it comes to wildlife management things aren’t looked at in the same way as the tried and proven ways which created the foundation for the North American Model of Wildlife Management. It may, however, come as a surprise to many readers that this new environmentalist’s way of talking about wildlife management is a planned event and not something that just evolved over time – certainly not the result of real scientific research.

What is amazing, to me anyway, is when groups and individuals mired in the muck of environmentalism’s new approach to wildlife management, are forced to see what isn’t intended to be seen in this new approach. It shows itself as some kind of epiphany, as though because of lack of knowledge due mostly to a prohibition of access to historical documentation constructed from the actual scientific process, tested over decades and centuries of time, a moment of brilliance comes bursting through the muddled mess of what today we call modern wildlife management.

We catch a glimpse of this at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) where when it was discovered that winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) were numerous and killing off the state’s moose herd, modern wildlife management’s “new approach” declared the cause was global warming. Every echo chamber around the world wanted to reverberate the woes of man-caused global warming and yes, “we’re all gonna die!” Their emotional claims for cures demanded that the only way to mitigate this winter tick problem that is killing moose populations everywhere was to somehow find a “cure” for global warming – a condition that does not exist in the context of how it is being sold.

Maine began a moose study – determined, it was said, to get at the root causes of what was really reducing the moose population. I have been most pleasantly surprised to discover that Maine’s moose biologists dared break with the mold of “Climate Change ate my homework” and suggested what has been known for a long, long time what was stated by an Alaskan moose biologist in recent years, that the ONLY way to mitigate the winter tick problem is to reduce the population of moose.

In George Smith’s recent column he writes of a book, recommended to him by Maine’s Wildlife Division Director (White as a Ghost by Dr. Bill Samual) who is quoted as saying in his book, “As moose and tick numbers build, moose harvest by hunters is far more appropriate and humane than invasive harvest by winter ticks. We should be able to moderate some of the damage caused by winter ticks for moose by managing moose at below die-off levels.”

(Author’s Note: To dispell the critics who will want to claim that my call, and that of MDIFW’s, to reduce the moose population is rooted in the desire to hunt and kill more moose. For the control of ticks, it must be realized that once a “die-off level” is reached through controlled harvest, that die-off level will need to be maintained even while it changes and fluctuates up and down. That’s what real, responsible wildlife management is.)

Perhaps we can see a bit of this “new approach” to wildlife management in the attitude shown in what Smith writes: “And while this book was published in 2004, it is still very informative and pertinent to our moose/tick problem.” I find it a near incurable disease that has infested academia and every institution that employs science – a refusal to research historic documents, accounts, scientific research, etc. as though it was worthless because it is so old. In this case, the author seems to indicate that observations and documentation of Dr. Samuel aren’t dangerous to the new approach narrative of wildlife management even though it is an ancient history of some 14 years.

In my own research about winter ticks, because of the lack of any modern studies on ticks, I spent the majority of my time reading and studying the ones that have existed for many years. These old documents proved then that global warming could not be the cause of increased tick populations. This is valuable knowledge that should never be discarded because of age even if new studies want to suggest something else.

Some honest effort, with a goal of seeking the truth rather than propping up the new scientismic pathway, can reveal many useful things. This must begin with an attitude that historical scholarship isn’t useless, outdated material – it is the foundation of the Scientific Process.

Instead, we see here where it appears that some miraculous epiphany has caused the resulting talking points to become one of a need to reduce the moose population to solve much of the tick problem rather than wasting time with the mythological Climate Change fantasy.

Maybe the scientific process ruled in this case of the Maine moose study. Perhaps the efforts made and what appears to be a daring and honest assessment of what’s going on has helped to restore my faith that there are still glimmers of hope in wildlife management – that it hasn’t completely gone to the environmental dogs…yet.

These epiphanies present themselves as though a discovery was made, and something is written as old as 2004 supports that discovery. It should be the other way around. That is the scientific process. But, if you don’t know and have not researched the scientific process, this is what we see. In this case, it appears as though a correct conclusion has been reached despite lack of historic scientific knowledge.

There should be a great takeaway from this. We will see.

Share

I Still Don’t Understand How You Can “Manage” Wildlife Without Counting

And evidently, I’m not the only one scratching their head just a bit in trying to figure this nonsense out. It sure appears on the surface as though claiming counting is no longer important as a vital tool to responsibly manage game populations, like bear, deer, moose, and turkeys is another convenient excuse to hide problems or simply provide alibis for where you were when the moose population dropped dead.

V. Paul Reynolds, in his article today, states the following: “When the moose aerial studies were commenced in 2010, getting a handle on the ever-elusive question of how many moose there actually are was an avowed purpose of the surveys, along with understanding moose mortality and productivity. Eight years later, it seems that, although we have gained useful data on moose sex ratios and causes of mortality, and other indices, we have fallen short in counting heads.”

And in and around 2010 (It wasn’t immediately made known to the public that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) had undertaken a moose study.), I questioned whether MDIFW would ever get to the real, honest, explanation of life as a moose in Maine or would it be just another in a long line of “studies” backed and crafted by Environmentalism’s Scientismic hocus-pocus. So far, it appears it’s leaning toward the scientismic end result.

However, it was encouraging when MDIFW reported that their data “suggested” that ticks were the real culprit in taking control over moose populations, although there still exists fuzzy voodoo science and romance biology over whether it’s Global Warming or too many ticks that are causing moose mortality.

As Reynolds points out, one of the great selling points of this current moose study was the need to get a solid grasp on the moose population and what is controlling it. The Second Grade question remains how do you accomplish this task while at the same time removing from the new Game Management Plan the importance of population densities and replacing it with “healthy populations?”

At the drop of a hat, or perhaps if it fits the current moose management narrative for political purposes, moose biologists and MDIFW officials seemed almost boastful in stating Maine had 76,000 (or lot’s more) moose. After eight years of study and many dollars later, MDIFW is reluctant to utter a guess?

Perhaps what’s really going on is a matter of attempting to save face. Is it that MDIFW has discovered that Global Warming can’t be blamed for a decline in moose? Has MDIFW discovered that winter ticks really are killing off the moose (you know, some of that “natural balance”) and it is NOT Global Warming that has caused the epidemic? Has MDIFW discovered that trying to grow too many moose has caused the prevailing tick problem? Has MDIFW discovered that there isn’t even close to 76,000 moose and, as yet, has not come up with a workable lie as to why they were so far off in their estimations?

If so, perhaps now they don’t know what to do because taking action to scientifically correct the “unhealthy” moose population means bucking the Environmentalists and Animal Rights groups who not only want more moose they want uncontrolled numbers of every wild animal that exists…despite the consequences.

Being politically on the wrong side of Environmentalism is a place MDIFW does not want to be.

For now, better to act stupid and not reveal your hand, and then maybe it will just magically go away.

In the meantime, let’s practice…1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10… I knew you could.

Share

Maine Moose Lottery Drawing Results

Click the link below and click on the letter that begins the last name of the applicant.

Maine Moose Lottery Results

Share

Maine: Moose Lottery is June 9, 2018 at the Skowhegan Fairgrounds

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

The annual lottery event attracts hundreds of hopeful hunters, anxious to see if they will be one of 2,500 selected from a pool of over 54,000 people who will get the chance at the hunt of a lifetime.

AUGUSTA, Maine – The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is pleased to announce that the drawing for Maine’s moose permit lottery will be held on Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. hosted by Main Street Skowhegan at the historic Skowhegan Fairgrounds in Skowhegan, Maine as part of their weekend-long Moose Festival.

Since 1999, the Department has rotated the lottery location throughout the state. Prior to 1999, it was always held in Augusta. In more recent years, lotteries have been held in Greenville, Presque Isle, Bethel, Kittery and Caribou.

“We hold the drawing in different areas of the state so that people can have the opportunity to be part of it first hand,” stated Commissioner Woodcock. “Nothing pleases us more than to have members in the audience react to being selected,” he said.

The Skowhegan Moose Festival kicks off on Friday, June 8 with an exciting schedule of events for the entire weekend, including a moose calling contest, a wild game and craft brew pairing and a country music concert featuring Phil Vassar and Bryan White (ticket required). Additionally, there will be several vendors, food trucks and fun activities for the whole family throughout the entire weekend. A full schedule can be viewed by visiting skowheganmoosefest.com/schedule/

In addition to the many events planned for the weekend-long Skowhegan Moose Festival, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner’s Advisory Board for the Licensing of Guides will host a roundtable discussion on June 9 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in the Lyndall Smith Building at the Skowhegan Fairgrounds. The public, particularly registered Maine guides and industry stakeholders, are invited to attend.

At 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, June 9, the moose permit lottery drawing will commence. There is no charge to attend the lottery event at the Skowhegan Moose Festival and the reading of names is expected to last 3 hours.

This year, 2,500 names will be drawn in the random chance lottery from a pool of over 54,000 applicants.

Maine’s moose hunt is designed to manage the moose population. By modifying the number and type of moose permits available to hunters, the department can manage the moose population in order to provide for hunting and viewing opportunities, maintain a healthy moose population, and limit the number of moose/vehicle accidents.

For those prospective moose hunters who can’t make it to the lottery drawing, the names of permit winners will be posted on the Department’s web site starting at 6:00 p.m. on the day of the event. Visit mefishwildlife.com to access the list once it has been posted.

For more information on moose hunting in Maine, visit mefishwildlife.com For more information about the Skowhegan Moose Festival and to see a full schedule of events, visit skowheganmoosefest.com

Share

Maine’s “Coded” Moose Management Messages

The Bangor Daily News printed an article about the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) need to reduce either the moose population, the tick population, or both. Even though MDIFW has announced that the number of moose is proportionate to the number of ticks, one would think the simplest approach – that is one that can be most easily regulated by management – would be to reduce the number of moose, even if only temporary until managers and researchers can explore ways of killing the winter ticks that are killing the moose.

Instead, we are getting odd, coded messages which leave some of us scratching our heads. I admit it doesn’t necessarily take all that much to cause me to scratch my head but consider these words taken from the Bangor article that were placed in “quotations” by the author: “One thing that’s likely to happen in western Maine, in one way or another, is that there’s going to be less moose than people have seen over the years,” Kantar said. “That’s either going to be a byproduct of ticks, or perhaps there will be some management actions we can take as well to try to reduce the parasite issue that we’ve been seeing there.”

We are being told that there will be fewer moose “than people have seen over the years.” Okay, we got that…sort of. With these cryptic messages being published throughout the media about focusing on “healthy” game instead of the number of game, is this another way of alerting Maine people that this shift in management strategy will result in fewer game animals across all species?

We are being told that this result of fewer moose being seen is going to happen one of two ways – either winter ticks are going to kill the moose off or managers are going to take “actions we can take as well to try to reduce the parasite issue.” [emphasis added]

I can read this statement and formulate some speculations, but what exactly is MDIFW trying to say? First of all, if there are going to be fewer moose, by this statement are we to believe the MDIFW only plans to let the ticks continue to do the work managers should be doing to reduce the populations to levels that will mitigate the bulk of the winter tick problem? And what is “some management actions we can take” to reduce the parasite issue? Is MDIFW even considering “some management actions” that include letting moose lottery winners “reduce the parasite issue?” When MDIFW indicates they might “TRY” some actions to reduce winter ticks, it’s easy to assume that doesn’t include issuing more permits to kill moose. What does it then mean? Hope and pray that global warming will go away? Or maybe that sea levels with rise so high that the ocean drives all the moose so far north there are none left to manage. Geez!

MDIFW tells us in another Bangor News article that there’s little managers can do about reducing the bear populations because the Legislature has that locked up. I don’t think this is the case with moose. Isn’t it simply a matter of determining how many moose permits should be issued for each of the Wildlife Management Areas to accomplish moose management goals? If so, and any one area needs a reduction in moose numbers, then MDIFW should issue the appropriate number of permits. What’s the problem?

I can also speculate that the reason for such “coded” messages is that there exists a fear of environmentalist’s retaliation should MDIFW simply announce they intend to kill more moose through permit lottery in order to achieve a “healthier” moose herd.

As the old saying goes, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

Share

Maine’s Bald Eagles Not “Big Game” So Worthy of Population Counting?

What a mixed bag of contradictory statements that come from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). We heard recently that MDIFW intends to shift its focus from keeping track of population densities of the state’s deer, moose, bear, and turkey and concentrate more on the health of these designated “big game” animals.

Evidently, Maine’s bald eagles are not “big game” nor are the piping plovers, as we discovered here, and so they deserve to be counted and kept track of in order that biologists can…can…can… better manage them? Because they are NOT going to be hunted?

A recent press release from MDIFW tells us that the Department is undertaking a bald eagle “survey” – something they do every 5 years. The release states: “Biologists are looking to determine the current eagle population; determine whether the eagle population has increased, slowed, or stabilized; evaluate changes in breeding abundance and occupancy rates and compare occupancy rates in traditional eagle nesting territories based on habitat protection.”

Sounds pretty smart to me!

Will this effort tell the biologists the overall health of the bald eagle? It would appear so. So why is MDIFW counting eagles and piping plovers and are not going to place as much effort on counting “big game” species? Is it because eventually, the move will be toward deer, bear, moose, and turkeys not being hunted?

If this focus on health is going to be the new scientismic approach to big game management, then, as the spokesman for MDIFW said, it gives the managers “more flexibility” in how they manage big game. We should then focus on the intent and purpose of “flexibility.”

Flexibility in government bureaucratic management historically has meant a chance to do whatever you want to do with less accountability for what it is you are doing. It also affords a chance to more easily cave into the demands of those whose power can make life uncomfortable. Of course, that “flexibility” is never presented in such a fashion. Instead, it is revealed to the public as some modernistic approach to new science that will make things better.

Unfortunately, this is never the case and will not be in this sense. It appears to me that seeking flexibility, or not having to account for numbers in wildlife as a baseline to successful species management, to go hand in hand with the continued migration of the purpose of wildlife management from supporting sustainable game herds to environmentalism’s non-consumptive over protection, is the real goal here…even if managers and biologists haven’t a clue as to what they are doing and for whom they are doing it.

Think indoctrination institutions!

However, the same press release indicates that perhaps MDIFW will decide whether or not they need to keep counting eagles: “The findings of this study will also be used to re-evaluate the future needs for monitoring of Maine’s breeding eagle population or determine whether to modify the 5-year aerial survey census that has been ongoing since 2008.”

If it is determined that there is no need to continue 5-year counting surveys, does that mean a shift toward general health evaluations instead? And if health evaluations are the focus, like with deer, bear, moose, and turkeys, I want to know how then managers will know how many of these creatures need looking out for? When they know numbers are low, counting is vital to the recovery of the animal. Is this then the new tactic – to wait until numbers of deer, moose, bear, and turkey “seem to be” so low protective measures must be implemented along with 5-year counting surveys? Are we not returning to the beginning stages of fish and game management of 150 years ago?

It would seem there is some middle ground here somewhere and perhaps that is what MDIFW is trying to do. But please, for those of us with a brain that works well enough to know the differences, do tell me that shifting management tactics from numbers to health offers more “flexibility.” I just am not going to buy it.

Can we back up and then move on?

Share