“The pack, which has at least three adults and three pups, has been documented in the Kettle River Range east of Curlew and ranging near Profanity Peak.”<<<Read More>>>
Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:
FRONT ROYAL, Virginia – Burgeoning black bear populations throughout the northeast were among the major topics discussed at the annual Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee meeting in Virginia. Maine bear biologists Randy Cross and Jennifer Vashon joined bear biologists from 16 states and six Canadian provinces for the annual conference, which was held August 27 and 28 in Front Royal, Virginia.
“Nearly all the northeast states are increasing hunting opportunities to try and control black bear numbers,” said Vashon. “New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia all recently increased the length of their black bear hunting seasons. Connecticut is considering enacting a bear hunt, and Maryland has been increasing the number of bear permits available.”
The two-day meeting focused on issues surrounding bear managers in the northeast. Among the topics discussed over the two days included reports from subcommittees/
*Bear population management strategies, including population estimates, modeling techniques and harvest strategies.
*Effectiveness of focused hunting in in urban and suburban areas to reduce conflicts between bears and people.
*Developing a standard message for how to react in a bear-human encounter.
*Standardized protocols for responding to bear attacks and the recent bear attack training received by the Southeast Black Bear Technical Committee.
*Summarizing data on care and rehabilitation of orphaned cubs.
*Ongoing predator prey/prey research about black bear and deer.
“The first day involves status reports from each state and province, where bear managers highlight what is happening in their state, and then we hear from our working groups that are tasked with researching certain topics,” said Cross.
Vashon noted that one of the more interesting topics for the working groups was the discussion concerning aversive conditioning of nuisance black bears, where bears are hazed or harassed in hopes that nuisance bear behavior won’t be repeated.
“What the group found was that there was no silver bullet or one tool that was effective, and that aversive conditioning is an effective short-term solution, especially when addressing an immediate public safety issue or when property damage is severe,” said Vashon. That was the result of studies in three different states where biologists radio-collared nuisance bears and subjected them to aversive conditioning after a nuisance bear complaint.
“Dealing with increasing nuisance conflicts is a priority for most eastern states,” said Vashon. “The committee is currently evaluating if increasing hunting opportunity around urban areas can alleviate conflicts. Initial findings indicate that increased hunting around urban areas is effective at removing bears that cause problems in backyards.”
One part that is particularly helpful to bear managers is feedback from the committee.
“These people know their subject and can give you feedback. It helps improve your program based upon the shared knowledge within the committee,” said Vashon.
The Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee first met in Maine in 2002 and has met every year since then. Vashon, Maine’s lead bear biologist, was the chair of the committee from 2007-2010. As chair, Vashon was instrumental in bringing the Eastern Black Bear Workshop to Maine in 2013.
The Bangor Daily News(BDN) editorial staff has gone above and beyond the call of duty to exemplify their ignorance on the subject of bears. There’s a saying that’s been around for some time and has changed a bit over the decades but essentially it says that it is better to make people wonder about how stupid you are by keeping your mouth shut, than speaking and removing all doubt.
The BDN editors decided to take a stab at removing all doubt by stating that staff at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) aren’t bright enough to understand in an equation involving bears and humans, the density of the human population factors into that equation. Hurray for the BDN to point out the obvious.
What causes bears to conflict with humans isn’t just how many bears and how many humans are on what sized land mass. But does the BDN know that or do they even care? Doubtful!
The issue of bear behavior, especially in human-settled landscapes is complex and changes rapidly. Editors at the BDN and radical perverts at the Humane Society of the United States have no business attempting to manage our wildlife and game species from their offices in both Bangor and Washington, D.C.
People have been spoon-fed utter nonsense since the day they were born and now they believe it all to be truth. No more than Chandler Woodcock ought to tell the editors at BDN how to layout their newspaper and sell copies, BDN shouldn’t be protecting an animal species they have zero knowledge about and clearly show that they don’t.
This is why Maine residents should vote to let the MDIFW professionals take care of the bears, BDN can continue to print their newspapers and the Humane Society of the United States can continue to fraud the people and steal their money. Or, they could do what others do that are clueless: Go play golf.
Expect this will catch on and be the new normal, anti hunting/environmentalist/ anti wolf management people will be following hunters around on public lands. Nothing good will come of this, unless escalating the division and angst between consumptive users managing wild carnivores for the preservation of consumptive use and people that are simply anti hunting/anti wolf or wild carnivore management is a good thing. Civil war..
It’s come to this;
“Friends of the Wolf, I am asking for your support to get my team of wolf defenders in the field September 15th, for the opening weekend of Montana’s wolf hunting season. Our objective is to prevent the death of the six wolves from Yellowstone National Park that can legally be trapped or shot by sport hunters. With your support, I pledge to dedicate my efforts throughout the Fall to publicizing and exposing the travesty that is wolf management in Montana, Wisconsin and Minnesota.” —Convicted Eco Terrorist Rodney Coronado
Activist Teams Enter Yellowstone Backcountry To Document And Protest Montana Wolf Hunt
Contact (satellite phone) 881-631-613-954.
Sept 14, 2014: Americans outraged with the killing of wolves from Yellowstone National Park (YNP) have organized the Yellowstone Wolf Patrol, whose members have entered the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness to monitor and document Montana’s wolf hunt which begins September 15th.
Nine members of the Wolf Patrol are currently trailing hunters, who in the last two years, have killed wolves belonging to packs originating from YNP where hunting is prohibited. Wolf Patrol members are opposed to the sport hunting of wolves in Wolf Management Units (WMU) 313 and 316, and are asking Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) to immediately stop the hunt before more wolves are killed.
Yellowstone wolves cross over from the park into WMU 313/316 where since 2012, twelve have been killed by hunters. At least three of the wolves shot in the 2012/2013 season were of high social rank (alpha female or beta male), thus negatively affecting reproduction, hunting behavior, and territorial defense of these unique packs. 7 of 10 (70%) packs living primarily in YNP had at least one wolf killed by hunters.
Wolf hunting in WMU’s 313 & 316, negatively impacts the local economy, including wildlife guide companies, hotels, restaurants, park tourism, and other wildlife-observation-based industries.
Yellowstone National Park is one of the few places left in the world where wolves can not only be studied, but also provide tourists from all over the world an opportunity to see a wild wolf. The recreational
killing of apex predators is negatively impacting important predator research while also robbing wildlife watchers of a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Yellowstone Wolf Patrol supports the growing economy in wolf tourism, and believes that MFWP is catering to a few special sport hunting interests, all at the expense of one of our nation’s most pristine
“In allowing the killing of Yellowstone wolves, MFWP is not just shooting wolves, but also itself in the foot, because this hunt is giving the entire tourism industry a black eye.” says Patrol member, Julie Henry, “We are not opposed to Montana residents filling their freezers with elk, but the wolves were here first, and deserve protection from recreational killing.”
9:28 p.m., Sunday Sept. 14
Back in April of this year, I went against my normal self-imposed censorship of reporting on poaching cases and shared with readers what appeared, in my eyes, to be abuse by law enforcement, entrapment, corruption and a display of practicing one’s profession above the rule of law. Here’s an update.
“…a federal jury determined the first three men on trial were not guilty of any felony charges.”
“…the officers could soon be the ones in the hot seat, accused of breaking laws to make their case.”
“A News 13 investigation in May of this year found North Carolina wildlife officer Chad Arnold killed two bears and a Georgia officer shot two others.”
“News 13 found Arnold[law enforcement] killed one bear in Georgia while he was alone in the woods and another undersized cub in North Carolina, which is illegal.”
“Southard testified he gave Arnold permission to kill bears in order to make cases against the hunters.”<<<Read More>>>
Our trip to western Maine yesterday found many of these signs roadside. They were mostly in rural areas. We suspect that many of the rural folks, even though they may not hunt Black Bear, do have safety and economic interests that make them understand that a ballooning Black Bear population will change their way of life forever. [We] saw fresh deer tracks but these critters will not be helped along by having more ravaging Black Bears.
Stopped to buy some honey and the inside of the shop as well as the outside had these signs. The beekeepers will likely be put out of business if the referendum passes as will many of the folks that have their crops pollinated by bees.
*Editor’s Note* – I think the insanity speaks for itself.
“”This is hurting us,” she said. “If you take out one species, it will cause immense environmental damage. We are trying to stop it now. It’s inhumane. It’s horrifying. I can’t not be here.”
The group left the steps to confront the governor in his office, citizen’s arrest warrant in hand. The warrant, which was a print-off, came from a friend of the group. Protest organizers weren’t sure which judge issued it, since the signature wasn’t legible.”<<<Read More>>>
I recently submitted an article for my monthly column in the Bethel Citizen newspaper about bear hunting and ethics. It should be published in the next few weeks there. The basis of the article was an attempt to understand why other seem empowered or compelled to dictate another person’s moral and ethical beliefs within the existing laws.
A Letter to the Editor found in the Bangor Daily News today from 70-year-old Hank Hoskins says: “I am in my 70s and have hunted big game animals since my grade school days. The pursuits required efforts beyond sitting and waiting over baits; the activities were hunts, not “shoots.” My hunting days are about over and my ethical code would never allow me to attempt to shoot a bear over bait. That said, however, I would never try to dissuade another person from doing so if such shooting was a legal activity.”
A glimpse into the rarity of raw honesty and what might be a solid understanding of individual rights and liberties.
It’s disgusting that I even need to ask such a question, but how are sportsmen supposed to feel and react when they’ve been lied to, abused verbally, demonized, ignored, laughed at, had tax money stolen from them and basically treated like a piece of worm-infested porcupine scat?
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is sending out “kits” to moose hunters and asking them to:
1. Take a blood sample,
2. Saw off a slab of moose liver, and
3. Pluck some hair.
BTW – In looking at this letter (posted below), I don’t see anywhere in that letter any instructions on safety precautions needed for when hunters do IDFG’s dirty work. Perhaps it is contained in the kit itself somewhere. If there are readers privy to this information, could you please let me and readers know? It is very important.)
Each hunter then must make a mandatory stop at an IDFG office where each hunter will complete a “MANDATORY” check of the moose. This in addition to the request sent out recently to Idaho sportsmen asking that they report wolf and grizzly bear activity. Really? Why not report polar bear movements or those of penguins? Why now? Why are fish and game officials all of a sudden interested, or seemingly so, in what sportsmen think, see or do?
According to what is written on a letter sent to moose hunters by IDFG, the reason for this action is to: “improve moose management through a better understanding of disease in wildlife populations.”
Isn’t it just a little bit too late? Where were these concerned wildlife managers when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were lying to the American people telling them that wolves would have no significant impact on game herds or the spread of disease? (Please find this in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the (re)introduction of wolves to the Northern Rockies.)
The wolf recovery team decided that it would not even bother to offer any kind of investigation into diseases that are carried and spread by wolves because any existing information was: “limited,” “poorly documented” and “can never be scientifically confirmed or denied.” These claims came at a time when there existed no fewer than 300 scientific studies worldwide just about the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus.
And today the World Health Organization includes on the “Fact Page” that: “More than 1 million people are affected with echinococcosis at any one time.”
When an individual, at least one who has the capacity to think independently, considers how government officials lied to them, and then how they have been treated before, during and after this crime of wolf (re)introduction was forced down their throats, why would they be eager to help these isolated by choice from the global scientific community elites with their fake task of “improve[ing] moose management through a better understanding of disease in wildlife populations”? It sure stinks of mollification to me.
For years these clowns were offered technical and scientific evident to help them “better understand wildlife diseases” and they plugged their ears, closed their eyes and shouted out loud, like a small child.
For crying out loud, back in 1971 wildlife biologists in Minnesota didn’t “discover” that Echinococcus granulosus tapeworms existed. They were out LOOKING FOR IT in moose.
That 1971 study result showed some of us, but evidently nobody at IDFG or USFWS, two distinct things:
1. “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.”
2. “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.”
Patrick Karns, in 1971, had a “better understanding” of wildlife diseases. It’s 2014, time for some TRUTH for a change!
This and the 600-plus studies in existence in 2001, when the World Health Organization published their latest scientific data on Echinococcus granulosis and Echinococcus multilocularis, evidently isn’t good enough for Idaho wildlife officials, or any others in this here United States of America. But NOW they want to ask Idaho moose hunters for help in better understanding wildlife diseases.
I’m not a resident of Idaho, nor do I buy a hunting license there, but if I did, my inclination would be to tell IDFG to STICK IT! You didn’t listen then and you won’t listen now. You are just trying to pacify the hunters and cover your own asses. No thanks!
A tip of the hat to reader “Chandie” for sending me a copy of the letter.
“So the questions arises, who would you rather believe — Maine wildlife experts who have studied and maintained the health of the bear population for 40 years, or the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States, which boasts that its ultimate goal is the elimination of all hunting, of everything, from big game down to barnyard varmints.”
“These facts evidently don’t matter to a group called Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, which is pushing for passage of the referendum. In a campaign advertisement the group declared, “States that opted to restore fair chase to bear hunting have continued to maintain relatively stable bear populations.” That, of course, is a flat-out untruth.”<<<Read More>>>