June 22, 2017

2017 Maine Moose Lottery Drawing Results

Follow this link and click on the letter that begins your last name to see if you won.

Share

Confusing Moose Crash Information

Statistics Prove that Statistics Sometimes Don’t Prove Anything

Either Maine has more moose or fewer moose and more car crashes with moose or fewer crashes with moose. Or, maybe there’s both or all of the above all at once…or none of the above.

A recent article written for the Online version of the Portland Press Herald, in the title, states that the moose herd has declined and so have the number of vehicle collisions with moose. The article begins by stating that these collisions have dropped “in part because of efforts by state officials to alert drivers to the danger of the crashes.”

Then we are told that three Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) will not be allotted any Moose Permits this Saturday during the Lottery Drawing, “where a dramatic decrease in moose-vehicle collisions indicates a drop in the region’s moose herd.” Evidently the DOT doesn’t work to educate drivers in these WMDs about the dangers of colliding with a moose? And is the fish and wildlife department now using vehicle collisions to determine moose populations?

Maine’s moose expert, Lee Kantar, says in the early 2000s methods used to estimate moose populations weren’t as good as they are today. Because of the constant changes in methods of estimating, it’s impossible to make any honest comparisons as to increases or decreases in moose and vehicle collisions and the causes for reductions or increases. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. All we really know is the number of collisions. That’s easy data to collect.

What’s confusing is that this report says that the Maine moose population “is between 60,000 and 70,000, down from 76,000 in 2013.” I have serious doubts about these numbers. At one time, during debate about how to manage Maine’s moose, some members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) estimated Maine’s moose population to run around 90,000. About all that boots on the ground tells us is that moose numbers are way down – from how many is anyone’s guess.

But the information continues to be confusing. Kantar says there are “probably less moose” and then cites, “moose populations in midcoast and southern Maine are thin.” If we go by the numbers given, statewide there has been a reduction of 6,000 moose since 2013. How much of that reduction then comes from these three WMDs? Perhaps all of it as Kantar states, “the moose population appears to be thriving there [Aroostook County].” He says that the moose population in the northern counties has remained “stable.” Stable? I thought it was “thriving.” What’s also confusing is that he says moose in the southern part of the state are diminishing because of the winter tick problem. Huh? There are no winter ticks in the northern tier of the state? Or is it because MDIFW has data due to the ongoing moose study in the northern tier of the state while they continue to guess about what’s going on in the south?

Confusing!

So, let’s not take just Lee Kantar’s word for what’s going on. Ted Talbot, MDOT, says that, “despite installation of new forms of reflectors along Aroostook County’s main roads, crashes still occur frequently because there are more moose in the region.” Is the population “stable” or is it “thriving?”

This report states that according to Law Enforcement in Aroostook County, “there are still plenty of moose to avoid on the roads.”

Even though this report says that moose collisions in Aroostook County have “dropped to 129 last year, from 247 in 2007,” Madawaska Police say, “traffic accidents seem to be just as much a problem.” Are we to then assume that the efforts at warning drivers about moose is a waste of time and money?

So, what’s the point of all this? People should know by now that colliding your vehicle into a moose can be a very dangerous thing. If you live in Maine, you should always expect any animal is going to step into your path and you should be prepared. But, it’s bound to happen.

It appears as though the number of collisions with moose has decreased. That’s a good thing, unless moose numbers continue to decline to a point where there are no collisions and thus might tell us that the moose herd is in serious jeopardy. As far as what has caused the decline in moose collisions, this report isn’t really that much help and the information from MDIFW, DOT and law enforcement only confuses the issue.

All of this just makes me wonder a lot of things about media reliability and the accuracy of information being given by fish and wildlife, DOT and law enforcement. Maybe all their information is just too political and therefore makes no sense at all.

 

Share

Moose Socialism: More Special Interest Allotment of Moose Permits

It appears that where once there was a “lottery” to decide who gets a limited number of moose permits for the annual Maine moose hunt, it is now a process of doling out certain numbers of permits to a wide variety of special interest groups, all the while further screwing over the people and the process of “randomly” selecting recipients for a moose permit, some of whom have been waiting for decades.

Now it appears that if you are 65 years old and have accrued 30 Moose Lottery Points – another crooked process that benefits the wealthy and puts the screws to everyone else – you can automatically be awarded a moose permit when you apply. Theoretically that could use up all that is left (which isn’t much) of moose permits that haven’t already been handed out to crony, special interest groups already.

Nonresidents will, once again get the shaft, as the allotment of moose permits given to nonresidents will be cut from 10% to 8%. One would think that the extra 2% of moose permits would revert back to the general (fake) lottery, so Maine resident hunters can have a better chance to bag a moose. But, NO! Those 2% will be “sold” to hunting outfitters to “subsidize” the hunting outfitter industry – socialized moose hunting.

Another brain child of some wealthy hoarder of moose permits (also known as a crooked politician with the ability to bullshit his way through the Legislature with such perverted nonsense), proposed and it has passed, another bill that will provide kids 10 years of age to begin paying taxes to hunt moose but aren’t allowed to do so until they get old enough. The bill is typically worded with deception saying that a 10-year-old can begin “accruing points” so that when they are old enough to hunt, they think their chances of winning are going to be higher. In truth, it’s another way for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to make money off a golden goose that is about to go extinct.

How many times have people and groups, such as the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, stood up to defend those brazen enough to dare claim that MDIFW and game management use game animals and their management practices to promote trophy hunting? And yet here we see an example of how, where once, after a little proper management, Maine was able to rebuild a seriously diminished moose herd to a point where it was decided that the herd could sustain a limited harvest. A lottery was devised and the process has gone to hell since that time, thanks mostly to ignorant and corrupt politicians looking to beef up their constituency as they look forward to reelection. Of course if you have been a beneficiary of the elitism and cronyism of the special interest groups, along with the subsidizing of your private enterprise, you think I’m an old spoil-sport, whiner.

Think what you will. But this is all truth. It’s a damned shame!

Those same people who are often chastised by the “hunting” community often say that all wildlife is for everyone. What a bunch of horse manure that has turned out to be. Hunters and license buyers pay the majority of the cost to “manage wildlife” so everyone can enjoy it, and generally speaking we don’t mind. Now, people like me and tens of thousands of other licensed outdoor sportsmen, are paying our share toward the system, to grow and maintain a moose herd, and the state’s socialists are seeing fit to take the rewards of that investment and doling it out to every special interest group in the state as well as helping to subsidize private businesses.

Every allotment of moose permits to any and all special interest groups and private enterprise, should be repealed immediately.

What B.S.

OLD HUNTER says:

 

 

Share

There Is No Credibility When Talking Moose and Global Warming

It’s just a constant echo chamber! It never ends. Stupid begets stupid and the heritage of ignorance is perpetuated.

Moose in Northern New England are being killed by winter ticks…at least that is part of the reason. So long as fake scientists, along with the tools of the inept media echo chambers keep repeating utter nonsense, there is no hope.

In a recent diatribe from an environmental website, there is a relentless onslaught of how global warming and the existence of man is just screwing everything up. As an example of just plain stupidity, the author tells readers that what destroyed the moose in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont around the turn of the century was unregulated hunting and logging operations: “the moose—nearly disappeared from New England in the 19th century, a result of unregulated hunting and the clearing of forests.”

This statement is immediately followed by this one: “In recent decades, they found ideal habitat among the mechanized logging operations of Maine…. The timber industry provides a constant supply of new tree growth, the animal’s primary food.”

In another recent email I received, someone was quoted to say that warmer winters were a benefit to the deer population in Maine, followed by a statement saying, however, global warming was killing off all the deer in Maine.

There is no credibility. It matters not whether there is full, some or no truth in the points these people are trying to make. When you make such absurd statements that once a Second Grader could pick up on, one must find real difficulty in swallowing any of the rest of the regurgitated offal the media and fake scientists toss out at us.

The short of it all is this. Greed and the perverse worship of animals (worship of the creation over the Creator) demands that wild animals can be viewed regularly from the comfort of ones home or automobiles. An honest scientific application to achieve healthy wildlife populations has taken a back seat to social demands made by ignorant and greedy people unwilling to get outdoors and find the creatures where they are.

With this ingrained into our society, don’t ever expect that things will change…there will continue to be prevalent diseases.

My God! Didn’t we use to learn this stuff in like 3rd Grade?

Share

The Only Way To Control Moose Ticks Is……

This Alaska state veterinary must be as stupid as I am…..She says, “Once (winter ticks are) introduced in a moose population in an area, the only known way to control it is to reduce the moose density, especially calves, so that there are no hosts available,” she said. “It would require an antler-less hunt or even a cull of calves and yearlings, which would not be something that would be easy to sell to the public.”<<<Read More>>>

And this is a classic example of why I end many of my articles by saying:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Old Hunter says:

 

Share

Moose Did Okay This Winter – Must Be The Global Warming

“Despite struggles in recent years, Maine’s state animal had a high survival rate over the winter. State moose biologist Lee Kantar says state data show about half of moose calves studied in western Maine have survived this year.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

OPINION: MNRF takes the road of junk science to forward their agenda

In my younger years growing up in Sundridge, the moose season fell on every even year and lasted a week. You bought your moose license and shot a MOOSE. There were plenty of moose and trappers harvested wolves and hunters harvested spring bears and laws were based on science and time-proven management practices. During this time the powers that be were the Ontario Lands and Forests, later changed to Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). Recently renamed Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.  Much has changed over the past two decades within what I once considered Ontario`s flagship ministry, for without our rich resources what does Ontario have to offer?

I have been deeply concerned about the direction this ministry has been travelling for some years now as laws are now being based on emotion and driven by special interest and protectionist lobby groups.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Apply now for the 2017 Maine Moose Permit Lottery

The deadline to apply for the 2017 Maine Moose Permit Lottery is fast approaching!

The online application process is fast and simple and you receive instant confirmation that you have successfully entered the lottery.  To apply, please visit www.mefishwildlife.com. The deadline to apply is 11:59 p.m. on May 15, 2017.

Applicants are awarded bonus points for each consecutive year that they have applied for the lottery since 1998 without being selected and each bonus point gives the applicant an additional chance in the drawing.

Bonus points are 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 they applied in 2015 but not in 2016, they still have their points available if they apply in 2017.


The moose permit drawing will take place on June 17, 2017 at Caribou Parks and Recreation.


For more information about moose hunting in Maine and the moose permit lottery, please visit: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/licenses_permits/lotteries/moose/index.htm

Share

Logging, intentional fires planned in Superior National Forest to improve moose habitat

*Editor’s Note* – Well, I’m confused but that probably doesn’t surprise many of you. Last time I checked Minnesota officials said there was little to be done about saving the state’s moose herd because “global warming” was causing everything imaginable that might work against the moose herd…including the defeat of Hillary Clinton last November.

Using the circular reasoning of unreasoned circular nonsensical clap-trap, isn’t cutting down forests contributing to global warming which in turn kills off the moose herd?

“Twenty years ago the Superior National Forest was criticized for allowing loggers to cut too many trees, especially too many large swaths of forest.

Environmental groups and others contended that so-called clear-cuts were more than just an aesthetic eyesore, but that they contributed to monocultures of small aspen trees and disrupted wildlife that depended on thick, mature forests of big, old trees.

The Forest Service responded by cutting back on cutting.

Flash-forward a couple decades, however, and plans to cut more and larger swaths of trees are getting high praise. Wildlife biologists and others say more logging and more fire are the only hope for Minnesota’s dwindling moose herd.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Collaring Wild Animals: Scientific Research or Playing With Technology?

The manufacture, sale and use of radio telemetry collars for animal research is a racket and perhaps a serious waste of dollars. Depending upon the model of telemetry collar selected for each use, the cost of one such collar can run into the thousands of dollars. One must ask then if the cost of the collars is worth the return on investment? Well, that depends.

What we do know is that using tracking collars for wildlife is big business and a very popular thing to do. The tax payers like it because of their perverse love, adoration and all out worship of any kind of animal…well, until such animals become a real threat to them. The average tax payer doesn’t know how the collar is used and seldom is any “scientific research” information/data shared with the public. When it is, a trained eye recognizes very little scientific process and whole lot of speculation and theory swapping.

When it is a most difficult task to receive information from state fish and wildlife agencies about their “ongoing studies,” some of us are left to only guess what it is they are using collars on animals for and what actual data is being collected. So, let’s take a look at what is, might and could be done with a tracking collar.

What got me thinking about this popular event of tracking animals with radio telemetry, was an exchange of emails among a handful of wildlife scientists about this very subject. The foundation of discussion was centered around an article written about a collared wolf in British Columbia, Canada that was tracked along a route covering over 300 miles (not unusual). The journey for the wolf came to an end when it was legally shot and killed by a hunter. Of course this prompted outrage from the above described group of perverse, adoring wolf worshipers. But that’s not the topic of this immediate discussion.

In the email exchange, questions arose about what, if any, data and information was being collected on this wolf other than to know where the male wolf was at any point in time when a “data point” was sent (telemetry) and recorded on a computer. One scientist commented: “Reading the story makes me suspect that the wolves are collared and then left alone, while “researchers” are watching wiggly lines on the computer screen – and start guessing what is going on.”

Which brings us back to one of my original comments that because of the stinginess of researchers to share information, minus their speculations, the rest of us are left to guess (our own speculation) as to just what it is they are doing or not doing.

It seems about the only place we can get any information about studies is through the “Echo Chambers” of the Press. The vast majority of news media personnel are nothing more than “copy and paste” writers who wouldn’t understand what a true scientific process was if it was spelled out for them. As such, what is reverberated in the echo chambers is the Environmentalist’s nonsense, most often including speculation and theorizing about each collared animal based on placing human values on the animals – i.e. a guess as to what animals might be thinking, doing, etc. based more than likely on human projection of human values.

The State of Maine claims to be in the middle of a moose study. I have written extensively on this project and moose management in general. You can search this website, mostly under the Maine Hunting column.

What has been doled out to the public, which we have no idea if this is an actual reflection of the study, is that biologists placed collars on a hundred or so calf moose and some cows. It has been passed on that the purpose of the “study” is to find out the effects of winter ticks (moose ticks – Dermacentor albipictus) on moose mortality. All that we have been told is that when one of the collars stops moving, the collar sends a signal notifying researchers of the non movement. Somebody will go find the stationary collar (as quickly as possible – wink, wink) and attempt to determine what killed the moose.

This is one function that we are allowed to know about, evidently. But what kind of science is this? Or is it any kind of scientific research that will provide data and observation in order to find out more useful information in order to create better management plans? Who knows. It would seem that if any fish and game department was going to go through the expense and time to trap and collar moose, a full spectrum of scientific observation, collection of data, and analysis would be implemented into the effort. Is it? Who knows.

If the only thing these researchers are doing is sitting in front of a computer screen, in their comfortable offices, “watching wiggly lines” so somebody can go to the site where they think a moose died in hopes of determining cause of death, what is the real value of placing the collars on the moose?

It appears the collars work pretty good for “tracking.” Watching wiggly lines on a computer screen can tell biologists where a moose has gone over any prescribed length of time. They receive a signal when a collar becomes motionless for a period of time. Suggesting the collared animal might be dead, researchers journey into the woods to see what they can find…we are told.

Then what?

How well trained are the biologists in determining cause of death? So, they get to the scene and see a dead moose. It’s covered with winter ticks. The moose looks emaciated and missing hair/fur. No cuts, scratches, etc. are noticed on the moose and is it assumed that the moose died from the effects of the winter ticks? Other than tracking this moose on a computer screen, did researchers enter the woods on a regular basis in order to know, not speculate, what this dead moose had been up to over the weeks and months prior to it’s death? Where was the moose when it died, and in relation to where it normally “hung out?” How is this fact relevant to making a determination of its cause of death? Did the moose actually die of exhaustion, due to a combination of a low blood supply from the ticks, poor nutrition (it is winter you know) and being harassed by predators, including harassment by humans – both scientists and the general public? If it appears the moose was partially eaten, are the biologists adequately trained in making determinations of the kill tactics of predator suspects? How many of such kills has each scientist seen and been a part of? Are they trained to know when the dead animal became a meal for scavengers or when it became a meal by the kill of a predator?

What other data is collected on this moose? Is a full necropsy (animal autopsy) done, along with checking for all diseases and health issues? Moose calves are probably too young to have contracted what Maine biologists like to call “lung worm,” also known as Hydatid cysts caused by the existence of Echinococcus granulosus parasites carried and spread by wild canines (coyotes, foxes, raccoons). It has been shown that this disease exists in moose in the state of Maine. An infected moose, having cysts in the lungs, heart or liver, can seriously hamper a moose’s ability to escape danger from predators. Is this aspect of a moose’s death even considered, or is it just passed off as death by winter ticks? It is important to know the differences if ever there was hope to do anything about the problem.

Tracking a moose, or any other animal, with a radio telemetry collar can tell biologists where a moose is at pretty much any given point in time. One could argue that is science, but if you call that science it isn’t very good science.

Another scientist in our email discussion referred to this action this way: “…just data points that merely define where they [collared animals] are at a given time. What they are doing, which really matters, is left to interpretation, [and] conjecture. Until an effort is made to “follow” as closely as possible the movements of radio-collared animals, we can expect more “Research Lite.”

It is not a simple task to net a moose and snap a collar around it’s neck, wait to see if it’s going to die and then go find it to see if you can tell what killed it. However, is that effort alone worth the time and expense? Before this “study” began, I really don’t think it took a highly educated wildlife biologist to figure out winter ticks were knocking the hell out of the state’s moose herd.

What other information is being gathered and will any of the rest of us get to see it and not be relegated to the end of the line waiting for another copy and paste edition of our favorite echo chamber? I’m guessing the latter.

Who knows!

Share