April 23, 2014

Snowmobilers Who Followed Moose Under Investigation

I posted the story a few days ago of a New Hampshire couple snowmobiling in Northern Maine, near their camp, and while following a moose on the trail ended up being attacked by the moose. In my commentary I suggested that after reviewing the video taken of the incident that it appeared to me the two people snowmobiling were too close to the moose and the moose didn’t like it, stopped and attacked. It now appears the incident is being investigated by the Maine Warden Service.

According to the Kennebec Journal, after much ado over the YouTube video of the occurrence, the Maine Warden Service will look into the matter to see if the New Hampshire couple was actually “harassing”, by definition, the moose. Charges could be filed.

In the Kennebec Journal article the man who eventually gets whacked by the moose said, “It looks like we were right on top of the moose, but we were maybe 50 feet from the moose.” In my opinion, 50 feet is too close. He said he was an “experienced” snowmobiler and has seen “dozens of moose” while riding and that he and his wife generally stay 100 feet behind any moose.

In my opinion, 100 feet is also too close. I have no reason to believe this couple was intentionally “harassing”, by definition, this moose. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Maine Warden Service should jump all over this incident and use it as a learning tool to explain to the people about the vulnerability of moose and deer, especially this time of year. Any action that forces a moose or deer to run or “trot” to flee danger is a potential life-threatening situation for the animal. People need to be made cognizant of that fact and fully respect the animal.

N.H. Couple Snowmobiling Gets Attacked by Moose

On Saturday, I was sent a link to a story and a video of a New Hampshire couple snowmobiling near Jackman, Maine near the Canadian border recently. The story tells of how the moose, “suddenly veered off the snowmobile track, turned around and charged them.” I watched the video and was left with what I thought was a reasonable question: Why were they following this moose in the manner they were, forcing the moose to move at an accelerated pace, especially during this time of year?

The time of the year is April in Northern Maine. At time most critical for wild ungulates, i.e. deer and moose. Fat reserves are all gone, green-up is still a few weeks away so food is in short supply and the animals are probably emaciated from carrying around winter moose ticks. In short, the moose is in no condition to be fleeing from the pursuit of two snowmobiles.

In the article linked to above, it states that the couple reported the incident to “authorities” and they, “told them that the situation was handled properly.” I’m not sure exactly what that means. Did they handle the situation properly because they notified authorities, or were they told following the moose, perhaps causing the moose to turn and attack, was the right thing to do?

From my perspective, and yes I was not there, the video tells a different story. Under the circumstances I have described above, it is my opinion that these people should not have been chasing a moose down the snowmobile trail. Their actions caused the moose to stop the relentless pursuit and attack his tormenter.

It seems I was not completely alone in my thinking, as later in the day, I received another link to this story. A New Hampshire wildlife official who viewed the same video said, “So I hate to be judgmental, but clearly if they had followed it for a while, there’s a chance it pushed the animal to its limits and it decided to become a bit more aggressive in protecting itself.”

Sometimes people should show a bit more patience and respect for animals like this and just stop and take a break and see if the moose is going to go about his business, eventually getting out of the way. The video shows the two snowmobilers hot on the moose trail; something that shouldn’t be done at anytime of the winter.

New Hampshire Tracks Moose

Warning! This video contains BS, unproven theories and oddly enough a bit of hope that New Hampshire moose biologists are approaching their jobs with the right attitude. I know. Sorry. I lost my mind for a minute.

New Hampshire is complaining about as much as a 40% drop in moose numbers “in some places” as it says in this PBS video, but doesn’t tell us the truth of what that means. As difficult as it was for the makers of this film to have to hear the New Hampshire biologist say their primary focus right now on moose mortality is the tick, it inevitably had to come back to global warming, even to the point of one man seeding signatures for a petition to urge the President to do something about carbon dioxide.

It appears obvious those in this video no little about the winter moose tick. While researchers can determine that ticks led to the death of moose, I believe they are just going on the assumption from what they have been fed for information that global warming is causing an increase in ticks. Warmer temperatures and snow, it says in this video plays into the hands of the ticks. But does it?

However, N.H. bios, it is said in the video, are going to allow science to determine what’s going on. Really? I hope so because it would be a first.

In the meantime, Maine is also collaring moose and tracking them in hopes of learning more about their moose, however, biologists there say the moose herd is doing well. In Minnesota, researchers are still saying they don’t know why moose are disappearing there and from last reports I have had they still refuse to consider a very large wolf population as a seriously contributing factor.

Oh, well. So long as these agencies keep getting money to research and never find solutions that would end the need for research, what else are we expecting for an outcome?

Deadline Approaching for Maine Moose Lottery

From the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

The deadline to apply for the Maine Moose Lottery is fast approaching, and hunters who want the chance to hunt moose in Maine need to mail or deliver their paper application by April 1, 2014. Online applicants have until 11:59 on May 14, 2014 to apply for the moose lottery.

Online and paper applications are available at www.mefishwildlife.com. Hunters can print and mail their paper application, deliver it to IFW headquarters at 284 State Street in Augusta or can easily apply directly online.

This year, the department intends to issue 4,085 moose permits in 25 different wildlife management districts that encompass over 21,000 square miles.

“Maine’s moose population is healthy and strong,” said Lee Kantar, the department’s moose biologist. The department utilizes several different methods to monitor the moose population, including aerial flights to assess population and the composition of the moose herd. During the moose hunting season, biologists also examine teeth, the number of ticks a moose carries, and in some cases, examine ovaries to determine reproductive rates.

The department also recently began an intensive 5-year radio-collar moose research project that will give department biologists an even greater understanding of the health of the Maine moose population, including such keys as adult and calf survival rates and reproductive rates.

Maine’s moose hunt is segmented into four different seasons, with the first season beginning on September 22, and the final season ending on November 29.

Maine’s moose hunt is extremely popular. Last year, over 55,000 hunters applied for a chance to hunt moose in Maine.

Long-time lottery applicants who continue to apply have a better chance at winning due to changes in the lottery implemented in 2012.

Bonus points are awarded for each consecutive year the applicant has applied for the lottery since 1998 without being selected. Each bonus point gives the applicant an additional chance in the drawing.

Bonus points are now earned at the rate of one per year for years one to five, two per year for years six to 10, three per year for years 11 to 15 and 10 per year for years 16 and beyond.

Since 2011, applicants can skip a year and not lose their bonus points. So if you applied in 2012 but not in 2013, you still have your points if you apply in 2014.

This year’s moose permit lottery winners will be announced on June 14 at the Moose lottery festival at the University of Maine Presque Isle.

Maine’s Deer Harvest Data Missing, Something Going on With Moose?

The last of the Maine deer hunting for 2013 ended on December 13, 2013. It is now March 11, 2014 and not one breath of information coming out of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) about harvest data. And as is always the case, the longer we wait the more reason we have to believe there must be something to hide. I mean seriously, how long can it take? Or am I the only one who cares enough about factual information to make my own assessments as to what is and what is not going on with the state’s deer and deer management (or lack thereof)? After all, there was all this pre-season hype about a restored and surging deer herd with projected increases in deer harvest expected.

Maine counts about 20,000 deer of late, most all of that information being collected from tagging stations spread out across the state. I hate to make this comparison but New Jersey counted just shy of 50,000 tagged deer in their harvest and the last of their deer hunting, winter bow, didn’t end until January 31, 2014.

Not to pick just on the deer harvest, where’s Maine’s bear harvest data? Gee, the newspapers are always full of bear stories, of the great work the bear biologists are doing studying bears etc. but no bear harvest data.

So what’s new with whitetail deer management in Maine? Nothing, I guess, unless it’s a really well kept secret. Hoping for some more serious global warming I guess. And where’s that increased communication we were promised in Maine’s Plan for Deer?

There is some good news about deer management coming from Downeast Maine. Sorry, but this management has nothing to do with MDIFW. Downeast, they kill coyotes, they kill bears, they kill bobcats, that kill deer. Oh, don’t worry. They aren’t going to kill all the coyotes, bears and bobcats. They just MANAGE them. Instead they are going to prevent the extirpation of whitetail deer.

Unofficial reports I have just received show deer harvest numbers are great. Coyote tracks and other signs are at minimum levels compared with previous years and with a spring bear hunt on Indian Reservation lands, over 50 bears were taken last year.

And by the way, with a continued abundance of snowshoe hare, the Canada lynx, supposedly in danger of extirpation, is thriving Downeast.

But there is something going on with moose Downeast. One observer says he doesn’t believe it to be winter ticks, as the usual signs of tick infestation aren’t showing up.

I also have an unconfirmed report that 4 of the 40 moose officials collared, as part of their moose study, have already died. I believe those 4 dead moose were yearlings. No cause given yet but it is being reported that when those 4 moose were collared, officials knew they were sick then. But what were they sick with?

Maine has already determined how many moose permits they will issue for the 2014 hunt by lottery. Was this decision made knowing that there may be disease running its course? Should MDIFW reconsider moose permit allotments. If only there was better communication. I think sportsmen and others would be more concerned if they actually knew what was going on. Or maybe that’s the plan.

Blaming Global Warming, Vermont Cuts Moose Permits 70% Below 2008 Levels

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont regulators want to cut the number of moose hunting permits by 20 percent because the herd is below its target population.

The state is planning to issue 285 firearm licenses for the fall moose hunt, 70 fewer than last year and more than 70 percent below the peak number issued in 2008.<<<Read More>>>

Snowmobiler Gets Attacked by Moose, Shoots Moose With Pistol

Dang! I dunno man! I wasn’t there but was this necessary?

Minnesota Found E.G. in Moose in 1971 Knew Then Recruitment Non Sustainable

Image3290I must commend our good friend and ever vigilante researcher, Will Graves, for digging up a report containing data and other information from a report filed after the conclusion of a Minnesota moose hunt in 1971. It was reported that this moose hunt was the first allowed in 49 years in that state. The full report can be found at this link.

I suppose the first thing to note is the simple fact Echinococcus granulosus was found in the lungs of moose. As is a terrific way for biologists to collect data, mandatory check-ins by hunters provided opportunity for biologists to retrieve samples for testing. In addition to the taking of samples at the check stations, hunters were required to reveal the location of their moose kills in order that scientists could visit the site and retrieve more information from gut piles.

Over the past 6 or 8 years, there has been much discussion, at least in certain corners of the country, about the fact that wild canines, specifically being discussed are wolves, are the host species of the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus. Tiny eggs embedded in and deposited all over the landscape through wolf scat, presents a situation in which wild ungulates, such as deer, elk and moose, while grazing, ingest these eggs. As part of the cycle, hydatid cysts can form in organs throughout the body. Perhaps the most common being the lungs, but also found in the liver, heart and brain. This is what was found in Minnesota.

Humans can also ingest these eggs, the result of which could be fatal. Hydatid cysts in humans is difficult, at best to detect, and perhaps even more so to treat. The greatest threat of humans contracting this disease is probably through contact with the domestic dogs, particularly those that live indoor and outdoor. While outdoors, family dogs can eat infected carrion and/or get the eggs onto their fur and in and around the mouths. Family dogs can be part of the cycle and if not properly de-wormed, can pose a very serious threat to members of the family who live with the dog. Imagine what is happening to you or your child, in the home, when the dog licks your hand or your child’s face.

The point of all this is to state that when some of us, being led by Will Graves, researcher and author of Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages and co-author of The Real Wolf, along with George Dovel, editor of the Outdoorsman, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary, Dr. Delane Kritsky, noted parasitologist at Idaho State University, et. al., took to cyberspace and beyond to get the message out about Echinococcus granulosus, we were all told it didn’t exist and any talk of threats to humans was exaggerated and nothing to be concern with.

And now we discover that biologists in Minnesota over 40 years ago had discovered the presence of E.g. in moose in Minnesota. However, there is much more to this report that Will Graves has unearthed for us.

The moose hunt in Minnesota in 1971 took place in two regions of the state. (Please see map in linked-to report.) The two zones were separated by perhaps 100 miles. One zone located in and identified in the report as the Northeast and one zone in the Northwest. It is here stated that Echinocossus granulosus was “common in the northeast” and not so much in the northwest.

Fascioloides magna was the parasite in the northwest, while Taenia spp. and Echinococcus granulosus were common in the northeast.

I also find it interesting that with today’s prevalence of denial of the presence or risk of threat from Echinococcus granulosus, that biologists in 1971 were, along with other parasites, looking for Echinococcus granulosus. If it was something not of interest, why were they looking for it? Do you suppose over 40 years ago, scientists suspected, with the presence of wolves, moose might be infected?

Field crews investigated as many kill sites as possible. Lungs were examined for the presence of Hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus) and lungworms (Dictyocaulus app.).

The biologists at the time where making the same examinations and taking the same samples from moose harvested in both the Northwest and Northeast hunting zones. What they found when comparing data between the two zones is tell-tale.

The Northeast zone, “carried larger loads of Echinococcus granulosus.” As a matter of fact, a considerably larger load. In the Northeast zone it was found that 60% of the moose carried Echinococcus granulosus. In the Northwest zone, only 10%. There must be an explanation.

The incidence of E. granulosus and Taenia spp. in the northeast is evidence of a higher timber wolf (Canis lupus) population in this part of the state.

43 years ago, wildlife biologists in Minnesota were willing to acknowledge that the higher the concentrations of wolves produced a higher incidence of Echinococcus granulosus in moose. It’s remarkable in a way, when we consider the deliberate roadblocks being constructed by some to prohibit any serious discussions and the educating of the public about this issue of Echinococcus granulosus and the potential threat it can have on humans.

But this isn’t all.

Most of us know that Minnesota is claiming that they don’t have understanding as to why the moose herd in that state is on a serious decline. Some want to blame it all on climate change, the collect-all excuse for everything these days, and a convenient means of covering up incompetence and political agendas. While the distractions and excuses continue to mount, it is my belief that officials in Minnesota pretty much have a distinct reasons and the proof of the beginnings of what has become, or soon will be, a predator pit and an unsustainable moose herd.

This report of 1971 clearly tells anybody interested in truth and facts that in the Northeast zone, where wolves were highly prevalent, the moose recruitment rate stood at such low levels, it would be only a matter of time before the moose would be gone.

Data from the aerial census and classification counts indicate a net productivity of 30-35% in the northwest and 9-15% in the northeast. This indicates a difference is occurring in the survival rate of calves in their first six months of life between the two areas. Area differences in nutrition, predation and parasitism may be responsible for these observed differences in net productivity.

If memory serves me correctly, in 1971 the United States was at the beginning stages of the fake “global cooling” flim-flam, but there was no talk and presentation of excuses as to how a planet, that was going to crumble and crack into millions of pieces due to cold, was responsible for a moose calf recruitment rate in Northeast Minnesota that anyone knew to be unsustainable.

With the environmentalists, which include the ignorant predator protectors and animal rights totalitarians, who want to create what they are attempting to coin as a “new understanding and a paradigm shift” about wolves and other predators, no longer to them are facts, history, real science or common sense anything worth considering. And that is the bottom line truth of what we are dealing with.

Tried and proven wildlife management, even the very basics, tells us that if there is not a high enough survival rate among the new born of any creature, to replace all other mortality, the species will not survive, at least in any sense of healthfulness. Instead, hidden behind other agendas, people want to replace this with “new understandings” and “shifting paradigms.”

Searching for “new understandings and paradigms” Minnesota is looking everywhere for the answer that stares them in the face. Wolves spread disease and devastate games herds and all wildlife and yet the “new understanding” is trying to tell us about trophic cascades and how the wolf creates nirvana.

Oh my God! We’ve actually come to this?

Maybe Maine Hunters Are Subsidizing Wrong Business

The Maine Legislature passed a bill that would allow the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, to steal moose hunting permits from Maine hunters hoping for a chance to hunt a moose, and sell the permits to sporting camp owners that they can use to boost their profits.

Maybe Maine is subsidizing the wrong businesses for the wrong reasons.

GotCoyote

After Collaring a “Baby” Moose, Moose Attacks Man

This video shows some of what happened to the man. Follow this link to the story and more pictures.

Bookshelf 2.0 developed by revood.com