September 22, 2019

Nearly Three Quarters Of Maine Moose Hunters Successful In 2017

*Note* – In the Press Release below, the second paragraph states, “For success rates in all Wildlife Management Districts and in each season, please visit the 2017 Maine Moose Harvest Summary.” The problem with that is when visiting the website, at least at the time of this writing, accessing such a report appears to be impossible. the MDIFW website scrubbed publishing harvest data, we were told, and now they are telling us to visit the Harvest Summary, which can’t be found.

I copied “2017 Maine Moose Harvest Summary” and pasted it into the search box on the MDIFW website. The results gave what appears to be a link but the link gives only an error message. I also pasted the same search criteria into a Google search and received nothing.

Perhaps sometime in the future, that link will work. What is certain though is that the website evidently has no intention of making any information wanted easy to find. I curse some of the changes made to the site and I might suppose that was their purpose in doing so, i.e. accountability, or so it appears.

*Update* – Mar 7, 2018, 10:45 am. I placed the link above as I was able to find a link that worked. Still not sure the link on the MDIFW website is any good.

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

AUGUSTA, Maine — Despite warm spells during both the September and October moose seasons, 73% of all moose hunters harvested a moose last season.

With 2,080 moose permits issued, 1,518 hunters were successful in getting their moose. Hunter success rates varied throughout different regions of the state with over 80 percent of the hunters getting moose in Wildlife Management Districts 1-3 and 5 and 6 in Aroostook County. For success rates in all Wildlife Management Districts and in each season, please visit the 2017 Maine Moose Harvest Summary.

“Weather impacted many hunters, particularly the first week,” said IFW’s moose biologist Lee Kantar. “Moose tend to travel less and spend more time in cover when it’s hot. Hunter effort also declines.”

The 73% success rate for hunters is consistent with the 71% success rate for moose hunters over the past five years. Success rate for turkey hunters generally is over 30%, bear hunters in Maine are successful 25% of the time and deer hunters in Maine are successful 15-20% of the time.

Maine’s moose season is split into three segments with six-day seasons in September and October. Temperatures were above 80 degrees on the first few days of the season in September, and some warmer weather in the 70s prevailed during the early part of the October season.

“High success rates for moose hunters in northern Maine are consistent with what we are seeing with our moose survival study,” stated Kantar. “Adult survival rates are consistently high in our study areas, and calf survival rates are higher in our northern Maine study area compared to our western Maine study area.”

The radio collar study is just one component of the research that IFW conducts on moose. IFW also utilizes aerial flights to assess population abundance and the composition of the moose herd. During the moose hunting season, biologists also examine teeth to determine a moose’s age, measure antler spread, monitor the number of ticks a moose carries, and examine cow ovaries in late fall to determine reproductive rates.

Biologists are preparing to recommend moose permit numbers for the fall 2018 moose season. The number of available moose permits is based upon population numbers and the composition of the moose population in wildlife management districts, as well as the population goals and objectives for that district.

*Editor’s Comment* – It puzzles me, but then again a lot of things puzzle me, that in this press release, it says that “Moose tend to travel less and spend more time in cover when it’s hot. Hunter effort also declines.” And then goes on to tell us that temperatures during parts of the moose hunting season were in the 80s and/or in the 70s.

In addition, we are also told that the moose hunter’s success rate was 73% compared to the previous 5-year average of 71%. That amounts to about 20 moose, which doesn’t seem at all significant in the grand scheme of things. So what’s the point of the statement about temperatures? It appears contradictory that warm temperatures would drive success rates down but it looks like the success rate was ever so slightly higher than the five-year average. Is this just smoke and mirrors?

Not knowing (and I searched) what the aggregate success rate for moose hunting since 1985 is, we really can’t get a true idea of whether 73% is average, higher or lower. Are we then to assume that the purpose of the statement made about high temperatures and hunter effort declining is the perpetuation of the myth that global warming is the cause for all things the might negatively affect one’s job? What are we to think?

Share

Moose Ticks: When Evidentiary Truth Is Pounding In Your Face

Yankee Magazine has another article on the Climate Change blame game as to why the winter/moose tick (Dermacentor albipictus) is so numerous and killing so many moose. Provided that ignorance continues to rule and all honest evidence is ignored because of a romantic obsession with man-caused climate change, no answers will be found with the exception of those sought after, i.e. new-science scientism.

I am not alone in my contention that the reason that Maine has so many moose ticks, killing so many animals, is because there are simply too many moose.

In this edition of Yankee Magazine, the author and many of those interviewed for the article provide an honest person with all the evidence that supports the substantial theory that the population of moose in Maine is too high and has been in other states.

That population in Maine is coming down as we speak because the ticks have done the job that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) could have done mitigating the unnecessary suffering of the animals and waste of good food by refusing the opportunity for Maine residents to hunt them, while artificially ballooning the moose population to satisfy the misled social demands.

Let me take the time for you to present the statements made throughout this article (it is in written form and not digital) that only a blind person (or one with an agenda) cannot or will not see that points a big fat finger at the fact that the number of moose ticks is proportional to the number of moose. (Note: I have emboldened the precise statements that clearly support moose population as the regulating factor of winter/moose ticks.)

“In the late 1990s, they [moose] numbered around 7,500 in New Hampshire; now the state’s population is estimated at 3,500. In Vermont, a high of 5,000 just over a decade ago has fallen by nearly two-thirds to the current estimate, 1,750. And while biologists are working on the updated numbers for Maine – which in 2012 was home to an estimated 76,000 – ‘there are definitely fewer moose,’ said Lee Kantar.”

It must be said that the author of this article linked to, as all others that come before, in pointing out the substantial decreases in the number of moose in New England, blame it squarely on the moose tick. However, the blame then goes to Climate Change rather than seeking the truth as to the reason for the increase in moose ticks.

Throughout the article, there are numerous references to moose ticks and climate change and it is clear that neither the author nor the information provided by those interviewed, indicates to us that they have any honest knowledge of the winter tick. I have stated before that the studies continue in numerous states about the moose and what’s killing it. It appears the general consensus is that it is the moose tick and yet any association of the moose tick and moose mortality is ONLY discussed concerning false conclusions based on myths perpetuated by climate alarmists who want only to blame Climate Change for everything, including their shortcomings of honest scientific processing.

There are several studies about the moose tick but nobody in this article has knowledge of them evidently. All the garbage that is written as to how and why global warming is the cause of moose tick growth, is not true and contradicts those studies that show those factors that cause growth and decline of the tick. Please read this article!

But let’s not let any facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction based on global warming.

Let me continue with the statements found in the article.

(It was in 1992) “At the time, ‘bad tick years were infrequent, and the moose population was still increasing.”

“It wasn’t until five years later, though, that she [Kristine Rines N.H. moose biologist] spotted her first tick-infested moose in New Hampshire. ‘Then we started noticing slight declines in our moose population, and I assume it was probably related to ticks.'” 

“Winter ticks were the primary cause of moose mortality in Northern New Hampshire, where moose density (and therefore tick density) is highest.”

The denial of the obvious continues as the author wallows in global warming and how slight variations in climate/weather is the only cause of more ticks. Burying one’s head in the sand is the mark of today’s scientists as well as writers.

“In parts of New Hampshire…the calf mortality numbers have been sobering. In 2014, more than 60 percent of the collared calves died; by 2016, it was up to 80 percent. (Toward the end of the year, though, Pekins will send me a bit of good news: The mortality rate among New Hampshire’s moose calves last Spring was only 30 percent).”

The author explains the reasoning for this as due to weather/climate issues and nothing to do with the fact the moose population has been cut in half.

“As biologists see it, there are just two strategies, both difficult. ‘We can put the brakes on climate change,…or we decrease the numbers of moose by letting winter ticks run their course or by increasing hunting to bring down moose densities.'”

Strange isn’t it? We read of a biologist offering two strategies, one of which is the ONLY thing that we can change, and yet, the focus is always on Climate Change. Are we brainwashed or what?

“Studies have indeed shown that with fewer animals to feed on…tick numbers begin to fall.”

But still, let’s focus on global warming!

In Massachusettes, where moose numbers have remained stable at around 1,000, according to this article, “…winter ticks are present, but don’t seem to be having a big effect.”

Perhaps Massachusettes has outlawed global warming?

Need I remind readers of the difference between 76,000 moose in Maine and 1,000 moose in Massachusettes? And yet it’s still global warming that is the cause. You can put a square peg in a round hole I guess.

The article states that in the Adirondacks of New York, where there are somewhere between 500 and 1,000 moose, the animals are; “virtually tick free.” “You can count the number of winter ticks on an Adirondack moose on less than one hand, probably because there aren’t enough moose to get the tick cycle going.

What is most ignorant – caused by the insistence of attributing everything to Climate Change – is that the author, even though he/she may perhaps see that the numbers of moose attribute to the number of ticks directly, makes the following statement: “The trouble is, nobody really knows how far the moose populations in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine must drop before they reach the ‘sweet spot,’ and the comeback can begin.”

Nothing is learned here. The blinders are on. Climate Change is the controlling factor regardless of what actual evidence tells us about moose ticks. The author, even after sharing what others have said about how moose numbers and ticks correlate, believes that if we reduce the number of moose so ticks abate, then we can grow more moose again and the moose ticks will magically disappear and not come back. How do you correct this circular thinking?

Share

Time To Apply For Your Dwindling Chances at a Moose Permit

From the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

MDIFW NEWS – – Apply Online Now For The 2018 Maine Moose Permit Lottery

AUGUSTA, Maine – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is now accepting applications online for the 2018 Maine moose permit lottery. Applications for the 2018 Maine moose permit lottery will be accepted online only. The online application process is fast and simple and you receive instant confirmation that you have successfully entered the lottery.

To apply online, go to mefishwildlife.com and fill out the online moose permit application. There, applicants will be able to indicate several preferences, including which wildlife management districts (WMD) they are willing to accept a permit in, and if they would accept a permit in another WMD if their name is drawn and all of their top choices are filled. They will also be able to select your preferred hunting season, whether or not they would accept an antlerless permit, and their choice of a sub-permittee.

If an applicant does not have access to a computer or the Internet at home, the Department has the following suggestions for applying online:

• Use a computer at work during lunch or a break • Use a computer at your local library • Ask a friend or relative with a computer for help in applying

The deadline to apply for the lottery is 11:59 p.m. on May 15, 2018.

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 2016 but not in 2017, they still have their points available if they apply in 2018.

Want to be there for the drawing? The 2018 moose lottery permit drawing will take place during the Skowhegan Moose Festival. The festival runs June 8-10, 2018 at the Skowhegan Fairgrounds and the drawing will take place on the afternoon of June 9. For more information, please visit skowheganmoosefest.com For more information about moose hunting in Maine and the moose permit lottery, please visit: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting-trapping/moose-permit.html

Share

At What Price the Exploitation of the Maine Moose

It appears, from a report filed by the Portland Press Herald, that biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are all excited because surveys have shown there are fewer winter ticks being found on moose than in previous years. Surprisingly enough, this report doesn’t actually give a reason for the event. I was surely expecting global warming…but wait! That’s right! Global warming causes an increase in the number of ticks. Does that mean global cooling is causing a decrease? I doubt that seriously.

From studies quoted by officials at MDIFW, we are told that what influences the amount of tick mortality is sub-zero cold and/or early snows in late September into mid-October. How much of that has Maine, specifically the Moosehead Region, had in the past 5 or 6 years? I thought so.

Here’s an interesting bit of information found in the PPH article. The newspaper and MDIFW should be careful. If they present too much of the wrong information they might just prove that I am right and they are going about their perceived moose problems the wrong way.

This report states that in 2011 there were 76,000 moose in Maine. I would assume they retrieved these numbers from an aerial count that was done at that time. Maine’s head moose biologist told the PPH that at one time MDIFW estimated the moose population at between 60,000 and 90,000. That 90,000 estimate was passed along to the Maine Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee for Inland Fisheries by another Maine biologist. Many agreed with the assessment of 90,000 or greater, than 60,000.

It was an official estimate that Maine’s moose population in 1999 was 29,000. Was there any talk of winter ticks killing moose then? If my memory doesn’t fail me, I recall sending an email (can’t seem to put my hands on it at the moment) to MDIFW asking about their thoughts on the effects of winter ticks on moose. I was at the time undergoing some research on diseases that affected wild ungulates. The response I got might surprise you. They said that they were aware of winter ticks on moose, that those ticks might “bother” the moose some, but certainly did not kill any of them. We all learn…don’t we?

To the point. Few would argue the fact that around 2012, give or take, Maine’s moose population was at the highest probably ever. Few would argue that since that time, the moose population has been decreasing. Did it drop from 90,000 to a current guesstimate of 50,000 – 70,000? At least!

Forget the numbers. It is conceivable that Maine’s moose population has been cut in half. I doubt that many would argue that from the period of time when people were tripping over moose, to now, there has been a very significant reduction in the moose population.

In the PPH article, it states that tick counts on surveyed moose have decreased 68% from this same period last year. So, what’s causing the decline? Unless someone can provide accurate data that can definitively explain this decline in ticks, there can be only one reasonable, common sense answer – something that should have been learned in Biology 101.

When moose populations reached an estimated high of 90,000, all hell broke loose. Unfortunately, all this “hell” was blamed on global warming. It is a reasonable explanation that such a large moose population resulted in a marked increase in the winter ticks’ resource of questing for a blood meal for the winter. As I have attempted to point out, Biology 101 teaches that too many animals cramped into too small space results in the growth, spread, and perpetuation of disease. Nothing new here.

Because all have focused on global warming, failure to adequately understand the phenomenon at work, Mother Nature took over, growing winter ticks in order to kill the population of moose. As the moose population began to decline, it wasn’t too long before we began to witness the reduction in ticks. Nothing new here. We are now seeing a 68% reduction in ticks found on moose during winter.

I doubt that MDIFW biologists will admit this or perhaps even consider it in drawing conclusions from their ongoing moose study. If we use their same explanation that climate change (global warming) is causing ticks to grow in uncontrolled numbers, then the only explanation they can give for this occurrence is global cooling. Will they see the direct correlation between moose population and tick population? For the sake of the moose, one can only hope.

I recently expressed a desire to see wildlife departments nationwide to end the practice of making management decisions based on social demands, especially when those decisions become detrimental to the health and/or sustainability of a species. Hunters understand that if numbers of moose, deer, bear, or any other game animal, gets too low, hunting will cease. In the case of moose, the numbers are too high and need to be reduced to mitigate winter ticks. Will greedy guides and moose watching businesses get it? We can be the responsible managers or let Mother Nature continue to force moose calves to die a slow, agonizing death from anemia and exposure.

Unfortunately, as was brought up in the PPH article, guides and outfitters are hoping the MDIFW will figure out a way to kill the ticks while at the same time growing the herd bigger and bigger because the animal “puts a lot of money into the state.” At what expense to the moose are we now driven to its exploitation for profit?

My only hope is that after all the time and money spent on this moose study, biologists will figure it out. But, I doubt that is going to happen. I think it is far beyond the point that any modern-day biologist can get beyond the myth of global warming as being the cause of everything.

It’s really sad a bodes terribly for the future of wildlife management.

Share

Insistence on Global Warming As the Culprit of Increased Winter Ticks

There is no end to this and I suspect it will continue – the constant ignorant echo-chambering of global warming is going to kill all of us and everything that lives. Damn global warming and damn the computers people have become addicted to that creates fake “computer modeling” and then is plastered throughout cyberspace as an effective means of brainwashing the masses into believing that if man was simply killed off, Nirvana would take over.

A recent article in the Bangor Daily News (Maine) contained information about a Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont ongoing moose study. Any discussion of this study inevitably brings up the subject of moose ticks. It’s kind of a no-brainer that vast amounts of winter ticks, also called moose ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) are killing moose – perhaps too many moose.

The article states information they claim is what limits the growth of winter ticks: “Late summer drought, which kills tick eggs, and early snowfall, which kills larval ticks before they attach to a host like a moose.” Unfortunately, as always, this is misleading information but works well with selling news copies. Also, unfortunately, this nonsense is repeated incessantly throughout all media to a point where people, including wildlife biologists, believe only what they read in the Media.

If you believe the studies and quote information from those studies, then doesn’t it make sense that you should believe everything that’s in the studies?

Late summer drought CAN have an effect on tick larvae survival. It may also have an effect on tick egg survival. Regardless, that effect is quite minimal in the grand scheme of things…that is if you want to believe the studies where these quotes come from. In addition, “early snowfall” might kill tick larvae in a roundabout way, but most likely the event itself will not kill ticks in an all-of-a-sudden happening. That doesn’t stop the ignorance and dishonesty.

One such study tells about drought and snow and cold and its effects on the survival of the winter tick larvae. It has all the regurgitated echo-chamber scientism, graphs, bells, whistles and even information on the use of “computer modeling” in arriving at certain conclusions. I guess left out of these media echo-chamber discussions are important statements like: “While alterations in drought may influence distribution of the winter tick, climate conditions, especially temperature and snowfall in the spring and fall seasons, seem to be the major determinants of northern expansion of D. albipictus.”

Take notice that drought “MAY” influence tick distribution. However, what does this study say about temperatures? It says that the most influential factors in the destruction of winter tick larvae are high and low temperature exposures. For example, direct exposure of 6 hours to low temperatures of -13 F cause tick larvae to begin dying off. And, high temperatures over 114 F will do the same. Media doesn’t bother to read any of these studies and so they rely on what somebody else tells them who also never reads and examines the studies in their entirety.

What do these temperatures mean? When tick larvae are on the ground, prior to climbing vegetation as part of their “questing” event, they are commonly found in the leaves where temperatures effectively never reach 114 degrees F or -13 F, say nothing about doing so for 6 hours or more.

Once the tick larvae leave the protection of the leaf litter, they begin climbing vegetation where they search for a host, i.e the moose. Their “quest” is a host for the winter where they remain mostly protected from climate conditions hiding out in about a 100-degree climate until Spring.

In late Summer and early Fall, during the tick’s quest, they are exposed to the elements while waiting in the vegetation. It is during this time that the tick is vulnerable. What we are never told is that the tick at this stage is most vulnerable to wind. Yes, that’s right, wind. Wind can blow the ticks from the vegetation and return them to the ground. They must then begin their slow ascent back up the vegetation. They might miss their ride. It could kill them in the end.

They are also vulnerable to cold temperatures. In Maine, during September and October, if the tick larvae are exposed to temperatures at or below -13-degrees F for six hours or more, according to this one study, they will begin to die off. If early snow comes and remains on the ground, it will end the quest cycle which in turn will limit the number of ticks waiting to attach themselves to a passing moose. Obviously, a shortened or a lengthened quest cycle will alter the number of animals that take up a tick for the winter.

So, please leave your comments below with data that shows when and how often areas of Maine have seen these climatic conditions that will kill tick larvae in September and October. Hint: I won’t be holding my breath while waiting.

But it’s global warming that is causing the increase in winter ticks. That’s we hear perpetually. Okay, let’s play their game. If global warming, as spoken and written about in the Media, is real, then according to them the average temperature in a place like Maine will increase gradually anywhere from 1 – 5 degrees F over the next half-century. With the information I just gave, and the fact that more than likely the authors of this study are believers in global warming (they indicate as such in their study report) how can it pass the straight face test that small average temperature rises are what is causing ticks to increase in the proportions that they have?

Missing from this study, as we often find in about all studies rooted in global warming mythology, is any discussion about how the number of moose effect the number of ticks. We know from what has been learned that the winter tick could never survive if it didn’t have a host. This study indicates that riding on the back of a moose is the safest place in the world for tick larvae to be. When we examine the life cycle of the winter tick, you don’t have to be an over-paid scientist to understand that to kill the tick is to eliminate any one part of its life cycle. Not much we can do about climatic conditions…no, seriously, there isn’t. Get over it. Grow up! There is so much separation in reality between the conditions of drought, high and low temperatures (in Maine) and the survival of the tick larvae that it appears a waste of time trying to blame it all on global warming when perhaps the answer is really very simple.

I am thus reminded of what a veterinary scientist said not very long ago about moose and moose ticks: “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.”

I have, and will continue to hear, all the nonsense about how, because I am a hunter, I just want to hunt and kill moose. Not exactly true. For example, I am a hunter. I hunt almost 100% only deer. I have never hunted moose, nor have I ever applied for a moose permit to do so. I have no plans for my future to do that either. I like moose meat. I like it a lot. I like deer venison more.

Consider, however, the ignorance of the statement that all I want to do is hunt moose or that all I want is for hunters to hunt moose. Once the moose herd was reduced to levels where events of winter ticks stop their epizoodic levels, hunting of moose will return to a level to maintain a moose herd. There might be a short burst of increased moose hunting to reduce the population, but certainly, it will not continue.

As far as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife managing moose numbers at levels to please the public to be able to see moose, it is time to end that dangerous practice. Growing moose so people can drive around in climate-controlled autos and view moose, needs to end and end now. Look what it is doing to our moose. Are we to allow 50% of our moose calves to suffer a slow death so someone in an SUV can gawk at a moose? Get off your lazy ass and walk in the woods to see moose the way some of the rest of us do.

But nothing will change. Obsessed with global warming and the money and convenient excuses that come with it, enables the creation of more and more useful idiots.

However I must say,

DON’T GO LOOK!

 

Share

Maine’s Moose Lottery: It’s About Gaming the System Isn’t It?

Man is inherently dishonest even when they think they are not. Most come down on the side of the ends justify the means and/or there’s nothing wrong with a “white” lie. Also clawing at my brain is the idea that ethics is something you do when nobody is watching. As a result, untold amounts of energy are being expended on an hourly basis to “game” any system that is in place in order to gain a personal advantage.

Maine has an annual moose lottery. It’s not perfect and many (those who seem to never win) think it’s unfair. It’s about to become more complicated and corrupt. Why? Money!

A bill has been introduced that would allow money to exchange hands during a legal moose permit swap. According to the man who is in charge of permitting, around 100 moose permits are swapped each hunting season. The intent of the swapping regulation is to allow two people to exchange their permits for reasons other than a profit. Here’s a real example of one such swap that was beneficial to both parties involved without the need to buy or sell anything.

Two people were drawn as winners in the moose lottery. Both drew a permit in a zone they didn’t live near. It was not their first choice. As it happened, that if they swapped permits each would be closer to home for their hunt. What’s wrong with that? And wasn’t that the intent of the rule, to begin with?

Now it seems that complaints have surfaced because wealthy moose permit winners want to offer someone else with a permit gobs of money for an exchange (are their no limits?). Currently, that kind of remuneration is prohibited. It appears the most complaints came about when someone holding a moose permit for a calf or cow moose, wanted to pay someone who held a permit for a bull to swap. What’s wrong with that?

When applying for a chance for a moose permit, each applicant must choose the zone they prefer to hunt in. I believe the system allows for each applicant to name first and second preferences of what zones. Perhaps a third or more. You don’t get to choose what sex or age moose you will hunt, which makes one wonder who does.

I know of at least one, and I’m sure there are more, applicant who put in for a zone to hunt moose knowing it was the least requested zone increasing their chances of winning. The intent was that if they won, they could find someone to swap permits with. He won his permit but couldn’t find a swap. He didn’t go on the hunt and the permit was wasted. This is part of gaming the system. It still goes on and I would expect it would go on even more if money is allowed to enter the swap.

What might happen if I live near Zone 1, one of those areas few apply for because of its remoteness, and I am approached before the permitting process with a proposal to apply for Zone 1 and if I get drawn and draw a bull permit, I can make $10,000 or more by swapping my permit with someone else who has already arranged for a guide to take them on a Zone 1 hunt. Obviously, there are certain risks being taken here but millions of dollars are wagered each and every day for taking risks.

There are other issues to consider. It was brought up by someone else that allowing for the exchange of money would prompt those not interested in moose hunting to apply for a permit knowing that money could be made by “swapping.” In effect, the Maine Moose Lottery would become an endeavor at catering to the whims of wealthy hunters who could buy every permit issued.

Some may see all of this as not such a big deal. If so, where do we stop? If the demand by the wealthy to get a moose permit is so high, then why not begin with allowing the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to simply auction off the 2,000 to 3,000 permits allocated each year. Think of the revenue they could generate to go toward their raises and pensions. They could continue to work with the guides and outfitters in order that all can profit…all at the expense of the taxpayer who simply is seeking a chance at hunting a moose.

Consider that with the ability to buy a moose permit, interested parties will go far beyond locals and out-of-staters. International interest will grow as well.

Maybe the Maine Legislature will consider passing and modifying this proposal in order that they can tax it and they too will generate more income for raises and pensions. There is no end.

Money corrupts! It always has and always will. Each time the Maine Legislature allows for more infiltration of money the more corruption will take place. The system will continue to be gamed by those seeking an unlawful advantage for their selfish wants. You cannot avoid this!

Even though the MDIFW Joint Committee has put in language in the proposed bill that would prevent licensed guides from reaping any profits from buying and selling moose permits, or arranging for them, are members of the committee so naive to think this loophole can’t be beaten. Come on man! Under the table deals and straw “purchases” would run rampant. And those are the only ones I’m smart enough to think of.

In the meantime, the so-called honest moose hunter’s chances at a moose hunt are further diminished because the majority of permits are being taken up by nonhunting applicants for profits.

As the saying goes, “Money talks and shit walks.” I’m walking.

Share

Into the Fifth Year of a Moose Study and Maine Residents Are Given Zero Real Information

I found in the Bangor Daily News a very short ditty (130 words) about the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) ongoing moose study. The article states that Maine is in its fifth year of the study. So, what do we know about the study? Not a thing. Will we ever? Doubtful.

For the five years, all that has ever been shared about the moose and deer studies are little benign oh-by-the-way statements that never contain anything of value. Why not? Why doesn’t MDIFW’s website publish updated reports of both studies?

In the end, the public will be blessed with such things as ticks this, and global warming that.

Share

Perpetuation of Myth of Climate Change Is Killing Moose in Droves

There is no end to the perpetuation of ignorance by those still claiming that climate change is responsible for what some believe to be an increase of incidence of winter ticks killing moose in Maine and other regions of New England and in Minnesota.

The Media Echo Chamber is undaunting when it comes to copy-and-paste fake journalism concerning Climate Change. Of course, this is fueled by fish and game departments nationwide eager to rattle the rafters with the battle cry of Climate Change. After all, it does give them the ultimate in excuses for doing a lousy job of wildlife management.

One can only hope that eventually (probably when it’s too late) biologists will figure out about winter ticks that are killing moose. However, the political agendas (this includes profits and people control) are so strong pertaining to Climate Change, there is little hope that much will change. As a result, a lot of suffering will occur.

In 2012, Maine biologists explained to the public, through their preferred echo chambers, what was causing winter ticks to flourish. One biologist reported, “Winter ticks are affected by what the previous winter was… If you have a lot of snow and a lot of cold, that’s not good for the ticks. If you have less snow and more warmth, it’s really good for the tick.”

This is but one example of countless reports from wildlife biologists regurgitating information of which they know little about. I will not clutter up this page with the hundreds, maybe thousands, of media reports that global warming is responsible for the growth of winter ticks.

The consensus takeaway from all these fake reports is the claim that cold winters and lots of snow will keep the winter tick in check and that because we are experiencing “climate change,” i.e. global warming, places like Maine are not having snowy years and cold temperatures. Thus, winter ticks are flourishing…according to them.

I have reported for several years that lots of snow and cold will have no real impact on the winter tick aside from abnormal events that might occur in late summer or early fall and in the spring.

I have also expressed my concerns that trying to artificially grow moose populations to please guides and wildlife- gawking businesses is what is really contributing to all the ticks.

Attempting to cause people to think for a change and ask simple questions gets tiring. For example, if “Climate Change” (no snow and warmer temperatures in winter) is causing tick growth (sea level rises and other predicted phenomenon that is impossible to measure – we must rely only on well-bribed climate scientists), then other events predicted or used as excuses should be manifesting themselves. The statement “deer are at their northern habitat fringe in Maine” is repeated relentlessly when management tactics by wildlife biologists fail. If we are experiencing enough global warming to cause ticks to grow out of control and seas to rise, then it only makes sense, according to their reasoning, that the “northern fringe” must be migrating north and the deer population growing due to less severe winters.

Another example involves the moose. As I have pointed out, if the increase in winter ticks is caused by a warming climate, then because moose are at their southern habitat range, moose populations in Maine would be decreasing because moose are migrating north.

Are any of these things happening? Would you know even if they were?

But let’s get back to that statement, “If you have a lot of snow and a lot of cold, that’s not good for the ticks. If you have less snow and more warmth, it’s really good for the tick.”

According to the brain trust that promotes global warming as the cause of everything, all that is needed to mitigate this winter tick problem is “a lot of snow and a lot of cold.” Without this condition (caused by Climate Change) ticks do happy dances.

Evidently, it’s more important to rinse and repeat the Media’s echo chambers mantra about the existence of global warming and the myriad theories of death and destruction from a “warming climate” than it is to bother reading what research has been conducted involving the winter tick.

(Note: I have done a lot of that work for you. All you have to do is read it…here.)

As I indicated earlier, perhaps there is some glimmer of hope that eventually some of these wildlife biologists will put their “eye pads” and cell phones away and read some real scientific journals to learn something. Today, I have read in the Bangor Daily News that researchers in Maine who are studying how weather and climate affect tick survival are indicating (and seemingly in agreement with previous tick studies I have referenced for years) that deep snow and cold temperatures may not have the effect on ticks once thought: “From what we’re finding, even with these persistent below-zero temperatures, it’s staying 25, 30, as high as 35 degrees down close to the ground,” said Griffin Dill, coordinator for the tick identification program at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Pest Management Office. “It’s still relatively warm under there … If we have the ticks covered by leaves and covered by a foot or so of snow, chances are, even with these persistent cold temperatures, they’ll be relatively unharmed.”

To be forthcoming and honest, this phenomenon is beneficial to the growth of many other ticks and not so much for the winter tick. I don’t want to be misleading. However, the general consensus among Climate Change wildlife biologists is that if there is lots of snow and cold in the spring when engorged winter ticks drop from the moose, the snow and cold will kill them. Perhaps, but consider what this study reports the temperatures are at ground level. I doubt very seriously that engorged ticks are going to lay on top of the snow, break out their suntan lotion and crack a bottle of Corona. It is possible that conditions might exist to prevent some ticks from getting below the snow surface but according to existing data, it would take a minimum of six consecutive days where temperatures, day and night, would not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. When is the last time in March and April that weather phenomenon existed? I thought so. It should also be noted that persistent sub-zero temperatures will have no effect on ticks hitching a ride on a warm moose’s back for the winter.

In an attempt to understand the reasoning behind blaming global warming, the chore becomes a bit difficult. Winter ticks, we are told, are killing moose. Winter tick infestations at levels high enough to cause death and destruction of moose are caused by global warming. This is convenient. This excuse says it’s not my fault. It’s the fault of global warming, that there are no deer and moose are dying. There’s nothing I can do. Give me millions of dollars and I will conduct studies in an attempt to create more scientism to support my scientismic claims about global warming.

As the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz exclaimed, “If I only had a brain,” so too have our trained biologists readily and eagerly stated, “If we only had lots of snow and lots of cold.”

Well, as much as Maine’s fraternity of “scientists” want to claim that last winter in Maine was “mild,” while parts of Western Maine saw record snowfall, this winter has turned into “lots of snow and lots of cold.” But now, tick scientists are telling us this is good for the ticks.

So what’s it going to be?

That’s easy to predict. It will be what is convenient to fit that narrative, which in turn will ensure those retirement checks in the end.

Business as usual as our moose pile up dead in the woods and biologists attempt to take care of the guides and wildlife gawkers and hoping Climate Change will bail them out.

We should be reminded of what one Alaska State veterinary said about controlling winter ticks: “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.”

GASP!

 

Share

Fish and Wildlife Management is a Laughing Stock, Unless You Are an Environmentalist

While the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) pat themselves on the back for all the outstanding work they have done (every child gets a trophy), some of us are wishing that a little of that effort would be focused on better deer and moose management.

To justify an increase of 60% in Any-Deer Permits (ADP), MDIFW says Maine has had two “mild” winters in a row and thus there are now too many deer in some places and we got to get rid of them. What’s confusing is that some of those places that got increases in ADPs, last winter saw record-breaking amounts of snow and continue to see extremely poor deer hunting. Evidently snow no longer is a factor is calculating severe and mild winters. Little did I know.

But if you take a moment and read through the “everybody gets a trophy” recognition is given to looking out for piping plovers, arctic char, bats, updating the website, selling licenses, shuffling papers and creating more regulations, with not one award listed for deer management, moose management or even bear management.

To make sure we understand this, license fees from hunters, fishermen, trappers, etc. pays for the operation of MDIFW and yet all the awards and recognition goes to the list above. This, of course, is the result of the direction that Maine and every other state in the Union has taken, turning their fish and game departments into carrying out the goals of environmentalism – totalitarian socialists doing the bidding for the fascists and liking every minute of it. They never learned that this, historically, is always followed by communism. Today the brainwashed would labeled this “fake news.”

Unfortunately, this is only recognized by a handful of people who still have their heads mostly screwed on the right way. Otherwise, the majority of people, think that using my dollars I spend on a hunting license to make sure piping plovers get everything they need, while at the same time restricting access by taxpayers to beaches near nesting sites, is a good thing. Evidently they need to entice more people to buy hunting licenses, at the expense of the deer, in order to buy those “everybody gets a trophy.”

At the present rate of declension, only a short time remains before hunting and trapping are regulated and forced out of existence because of the influence of Sustainable Development’s Environmentalism.

I stand as a distinct minority in my judgement as to how I perceive fish and wildlife departments nationwide…But that doesn’t make my perspective wrong.

Share

You Ain’t Nothin’ But a Hound Dog?

Share