April 19, 2019

Gaining Understanding of Deer Habits…And Then Forgetting Them

I would suppose an “attaboy!” is in order for a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologist from Northern Maine who tells some truth about why locations throughout Maine are finding deer in places they don’t “normally” spend their winters.

I put the word “normally” in quotations because it forces (or should) the question of what is normal? I’m not sure I can answer that in any other terms than to say it is what I think it should be. Perhaps none of us live long enough and are “expert” on deer biology to grasp an understanding of normal beyond only the period of time we are interested in the subject and what history books (often better relegated to the Fiction aisles and shelves in libraries) tell us about what is “normal” behavior for deer.

In our short life span, we have been indoctrinated (both citizen and biologist) to believe that it is “normal” behavior for deer to spend winters cooped-up in a classic, ideal, “deer wintering area,” known once to Mainers as a deer yard. This same indoctrination machine tended to cast dishonest claims about how deer, without those ideal deer wintering areas, shrivel up and die.

God only knows that this negative destruction can happen but does it happen at the rate scientismic biologists believe it does?

To believe such scientismic clap-trap is to say that deer, or any other wild creature, is mostly incapable of making adjustments to their habits in order to survive. I would claim that animals are more adept at this action/reaction than most humans.

Throughout Maine this winter, mostly toward the latter stages of a very snowy winter in many regions across the state, reports are surfacing of people finding pockets of deer (some in quite large numbers) hanging out in neighborhoods or right in the midst of down town. Why are the deer doing this?

I have written for years that I was finding deer in the throes of winter in places deemed as not “normal.” I guess normal is changing. Are the biologists though?

I doubt they are or at least not quickly enough to adjust their own habits to meet the management needs of the down town deer herds.

In Northern Maine, one biologist recognizes the reality – something that appears to have taken many years to admit: “Wildlife Biologist Shawn Haskell says between starvation, predators like coyotes and an occasional lynx, as well as competing with moose for food, it’s a struggle for deer in the wild. That’s why over time they’ve transitioned to more residential areas in colder months.”

Let’s point out the admissions often never spoken of in certain circles. First there’s the admission that coyotes kill deer; in winter; in deer yards. Aside from an “occasional lynx” perhaps the “occasional” bobcat was overlooked. And, lo and behold, the first time I’ve seen in writing that a Maine wildlife biologist is admitting that moose and deer compete for the same winter food. Thus, as honest logic would dictate, more moose hogging the food has a negative and detrimental affect on the deer herd. Too many moose, less deer. Too many moose, more winter ticks, fewer moose, more deer.

But the biggest admission of all is that the deer are adjusting and finding winter comfort (relative term) in places that, due to a more shy behavior of coyotes, Canada lynx, and bobcats, these predators might fear to tread. This is, as explained by the MDIFW biologist, one of the reasons we are seeing deer in places that are considered not “normal.”

So, “normal” is changing…it has changed. It isn’t “normal” anymore. Or, normal is not consistent. While it may be ideal in our brainwashing of “normal” things to see deer in those Hotel Hilton sort of deer yards, it ain’t gonna happen anymore. Things they are a changin’!

And they will continue to change. Yes, we should do what is reasonable to protect those “normal” deer yards. No, I’m not suggesting we “take em by force.” That’s not reasonable in my book, nor is it “normal.”

The Maine biologist alludes to a couple things we should take note of and I think there might be a lesson to be learned as well. The biologist says that the deer that are wintering in down town, “…have not forgotten where they came from.” Or, maybe they have. If “normal” is not their “normal” anymore, even if that “normal” disappeared forever due to forest management practices, a new normal will be achieved and lagging behind will be the education (indoctrination, if and when it fits another agenda) of citizens and wildlife biologists that deer ain’t where they used to be. (This is currently being blamed on Global Warming.)

Also alluded to about the changing habits of deer was, “…a situation that just works for them now.” I’m glad that the biologist recognizes the “for now” aspect of this event. Perhaps one day the deer will return to the Hotel Hilton’s winter resort of ideal “old growth” dense forests for protection from the elements. Or maybe they won’t. It’s what works. The deer will adjust but will the biologist?

Another issue not mentioned here which is mandatory in any honest conversation about deer management and predator control. We finally have the admission that coyotes kill deer. We are witnessing the deer making adjustments for their own survival by going places the coyotes, lynx, and bobcats might shy away from…FOR NOW!

If you know anything about wild canine behavior, you’ll have to admit that if deer decide that “normal” is in your back yard, the predators will overcome their fear and will dare tread on the winter habitats regardless of where they are. Predators are mostly driven by hunger. Fear of humans and our habitat is but a temporary roadblock.

How long will it be before bringing the wildlife into our towns, mostly due to predator protection, sets off a firestorm about public safety and that something needs to be done about it?

If things don’t change from current perverse perspectives on animal idolatry, when this day arrives, look for the call to go out to kill the deer (and waste the food) so that the wild dogs can have their way.

Share

Battling Ticks – We Can’t Eat Mice

Staten Island is at it again. This time they are targeting mice as a means of mitigating the tick problem – instead of targeting deer.

Recall that Staten Island contracted with Cornell University to undertake a deer vasectomy program that is believed to stop or reduce the breeding and production of deer by making sure some of the male deer are unable to mate with a female deer in heat. There’s a couple of problems with this dog and pony show. One problem is that one buck, that has not been snipped and clipped, will probably die trying to breed all the female deer that come into heat. The second problem is that when a doe deer goes into estrus (heat) she will remain that way until bred. Somewhere alone the lines in the misguided, perverse society we are subjected to, I read something about deer reproductive rights.

But I digress!

Now, some say due to an overblown deer population on the island, the threat of disease from ticks is growing as well. But this time, instead of going after the deer to curb the diseases, New York will spend a gob of money each year for 3 years to go after mice – the real culprits that spread the deer tick responsible for Lyme disease.

Deer meat tastes far better than mouse meat. Because we live in a post normal world, where everything is upside-down, our sick culture cannot see the benefits of killing the deer to eat, which in turn would help to mitigate the tick problem AND at the same time, seriously reduce the number of nasty, disease-carrying mice. Better health, better food.

But no!

Share

Environmentalism’s Wildlife Management Voodoo Science

Here is a fine example of the utter nonsense being drummed into the heads of wildlife biologists and managers around the country…and probably the world. Similar statements are cropping up on a regular basis in many state wildlife management departments (example found here) in a perverted example of the Romance Biology and Voodoo Science that has gripped these agencies courtesy of Environmentalism’s evil hand.

I read this trash in a Vermont Online publication about how it no longer really matters how many animals are part of any state’s wildlife management programs: “It’s natural to be curious about how many moose or bald eagles exist in a given place at a given time, but is it necessary information? For most species, the answer is no. The overarching goal of state wildlife management programs is to maintain healthy, stable wildlife populations — to keep common species common, to help declining species recover, and to do so within the practical confines of a never-enough budget. Marchand described this part of his work as “determining what information we need to know in order to make effective conservation decisions. The more info you need, the more it costs.”

“In the end, we’ll never know precisely how many moose or bald eagles there are in the Granite State. What we do know, from trend data, is that wood turtles are vulnerable, moose are in decline and eagles, thankfully, are recovering. When it comes to managing wildlife, that’s enough.”

All this Voodoo Science accomplishes is it provides an escape goat for incompetent wildlife managers who want to operate their agencies as agents of Environmentalism; an operation that excludes consumptive use and provides “rights” and protection for all animals. So long as the waters can forever be muddied with garbage such as this, the easier it is to pull the wool over people’s eyes.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to responsibly manage any wildlife species without a relative assurance as to the numbers that exist within a population. To state otherwise is utter nonsense. To believe otherwise is insanity.

The only way anyone can claim that recognizing “trends” is enough when it comes to wildlife management, is that their long-term goals are to eliminate the North American Model of Wildlife Management and be done with hunting, fishing, and trapping as a proven management tool.

But don’t go look!

Share

Fascism We Call Shaping the Future

The other day I was led to a report from Maine prepared by a new legislative, mandated formation of The Land Conservation Task Force. Not surprisingly, the title of this report comes to you as: “Shaping the Next Generation of Land Conservation in Maine.”

What could possibly be wrong with this? I doubt most know.

When any government mandates the formation of a “task force” whose mandate it is to find ways to SHAPE the next generation for any reason, should either run and hide or prepare for oppression. Unfortunately, most choose to run and hide and/or just bury their heads.

I don’t have the time nor the ambition to walk you through this work of fascism, disguised as good community (commune, communism) service…all for the good of all as “shaped” by someone else’s political idealism. I would, however, like to focus on just one part of this communist manifesto.

On Page 20 we find: “Recommendation #5: Target land conservation efforts to effectively protect critical natural resources and help Maine combat and adapt to a changing climate.”

The ignorance that exists within this task force must be for the greater good. As representatives of a brainwashed society, hand picked to serve due to their admiration of “Bread and Circuses,” each member has been thoroughly consumed with the myth of man-caused global warming (they choose to be more comfortable by calling it Climate Change) from the perspective that by living an existence of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, we are causing the earth to warm and all the fake aftereffects.

I suppose we should congratulate the purveyors of such nonsense; those who have profited richly from taking advantage of ignorant taxpayers, the blind and delusional, for successfully perpetuating the taxable lie about a warming climate caused by farting cows and you driving to work to you can pay the way of those who refuse to work – while they trek about in gas-guzzling jets.

However, there is NO hope that the pEOPLE are soon to shed their delusions and do what they should know as the right thing. You either buy into the scam behind this form of Climate Change (yes, capital “Cs”) or you see it for what it really is. I doubt anything I can say will change your mind. But I can try.

Maybe then, you’ll see the authoritarian actions being thrust upon us by eager autocrats who know not what they do. This group of totalitarians have taken it upon themselves, by order of the centralized fascist legislature, to decide what is best for you, your land, the economy of the state, the environment, the climate, and what and how our natural resources should be used or not. They make recommendations which lands, whether yours or theirs, you can access and what you can do with them – and this all from a group’s perspective of how my and your life should be run.

Do you like that?

Bear in mind that these recommendations of what THEY want and how THEY think you and I should live, are partly based on THEIR notion of what they have been brainwashed to believe about Climate Change. This is what they tell us: “Already change has manifest itself through shifting seasons, increased precipitation, introduction of nonnative species and rising sea level. Noticeable impacts include shorter maple tapping seasons, an abundance of ticks and associated diseases, increased coastal erosion and green crabs and other pests that have compromised otherwise robust natural-resource based economies.”

It takes quite the imagination to blame everything they have listed on their “Schindler’s List” as a result of Climate Change. What is a “shifting season?” Is that when Spring is followed by Winter and Summer follows Fall?

I find it laughable that Climate Change causes “introduction of nonnative species.” How does that happen exactly?

Much of this cannot pass a straight face test. Nothing suggested here that the group believes is having “negative” affects on THEIR state, can be proven. It is nothing more than propaganda being passed on to the populace as fact. It is far from true facts and fully supported as false facts.

This is just part of the nonsense being swallowed by an entire culture. But it’s not just this list of made-up fantasies used to promote a lie. It’s the Second Grade level psycho-babble they use in an attempt to sell an idealism that carries worthless meaning. We read: “Maine’s forested landscape provides an important means to lessen the impacts through the sequestration of carbon both in the forest and in products derived from the forest.”

Doesn’t that just make you feel fuzzy all over? Do you know what it is suggesting? It means we must stop cutting trees. Cut down trees can’t “sequester” carbon. GASP!

“Moreover, certain areas and ecosystems have been identified as critical to future adaptation to a changing climate in Maine such as the undeveloped corridor running along Maine’s Western Mountains up through the Allagash and St. John River Valleys and coastal wetlands subject to rising sea levels.”

Oh my! I guess this means we’re all gonna die! What should we do? If we follow their recommendations, we need to take control over and shut down all access to the land that runs from Western Maine, to the Allagash, and through the St. John River Valley. HANDS OFF you carbon causing criminals. That land belongs to the KING…or at least the fascist government who appoints the totalitarians, strongly deluded, members to their fascist task force.

And here’s some more nonsense: “A landscape fragmented by roads, energy infrastructure, dams, and development presents a barrier to many species whose range may shift.”

When it is convenient, these environmentalists claim that species are dying because they are incapable of adapting (shifting) to another “range” or habit. But, when they choose to invoke a claim about species deciding to “shift ranges” then all progress must stop in order to allow such an event. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s much like hunting causes extermination of species and at the same time hunting causes the expansion of species. How is that possible?

“Maintaining landscape-scale connectivity and conserving a network of ecological reserves within a matrix of undeveloped land (including working forests) offers the best chance of retaining a diverse variety of plants and animals.”

I emboldened all the key phrases that I’m sure came right out of the book of radical Environmentalism. PUKE!

This horse manure continues with no end in sight. It’s sustainable development, it’s Agenda 21, it’s from UNEP, it’s Environmentalism, it’s Fascism, it’s Totalitarianism all rolled up in a nice neat wrap. Nobody takes the time to exam the words to discover the real meaning behind this overreach into our lives, having a group of unelected, government appointed socialists dictating what is best for you and I.

I can’t speak for you but I don’t need anybody telling me how I should live and what is best for me. I do my own thinking. I just wish more of you would give it a try and tell these well-intentioned, dictatorial, oppressive, tyrants to back off.

Go SHAPE your own lifestyle and leave mine alone. I don’t want nor do I need any of your “help.” Especially this kind.

Share

Recruiting Hunters and Fighting Antis: It’s Just a Little Too Late

Reading two articles this morning, I am reminded of the old saying, “A day late and dollar short.”

The first article is in response to the latest U.S.F.W.S.’s survey of hunting and fishing which shows a decline in the number of hunting licenses sold. The article goes on to tell of what we can do to reverse that trend…ha, ha.

Recruitment, retention, and reactivation, they label it, is what is needed they say. Isn’t it just a long time overdue and far too late? Retention and reactivation are near impossible in some locations for several reasons but who wants to hunt when the hunting sucks. Places in the country, more than many want to talk about, are void of game animals to hunt and/or land to hunt on. Much of that game is locked up on private posted land. Overprotection of large predators has caused a rapid and permanent decline in deer and moose. This trend won’t end until something is done to control large predators – all part of the problem.

This brings us to part of a bigger problem that also effects why recruitment is near impossible.

A second article deals with the so-called antis who want to stop hunting. The article reads: “Their [antis] zealous drive to ban sensible wildlife management will never be derailed by facts or science because they refuse to consider facts or science. The flame of compassion burns hot in the antis, fanned by the fear-monger zealots and financial bottom lines of the PETA’s and Disney’s of the world.”

And why are these zealots this way? Simple. It began at their childhood when media, schools, etc. began a systematic propaganda campaign that involved two very prominent aspects of today’s post-normal culture – a perverse perspective on animals and an aggressive “boot to the throat” approach toward forcing the “non believers” to assimilate or else.

How do you fight that now?

One article talks of programs that have been tried – some proven to work they say – but in reality any success seen in this form of recruitment is only based on passing fads, i.e. it’s cool to want to eat “natural” food. The real damage was done decades ago and continues with extreme pressure today. While a passing fad might temporarily convince a few to take up the sport, it cannot be disregarded that these same people came out of that brainwashed existence of hands-off wildlife management and protect all animals at any cost.

Perhaps efforts in play now can slow the demise down but until such time as the entire systematic approach to change the way wildlife management is viewed and talked about, whose change has permeated every level of wildlife management, no real changes will be made. Hunting must, once again, become an overwhelmingly accepted part, a tradition, a heritage, of American life.

With the brainwashing that has taken place, there is no longer any such thing as sensible and rational discourse in resolving problems. The attitude is I am right and you will change to my way…end of discussion.

In the article about the antis, the author laments that they: “…refuse to consider facts or science.” Isn’t that the description of just about everyone in this exceptionally screwed up world? Scientism, which is the fake governing source of everything related to the world of science, dictates that ideological theories that support political agendas is the only “science” that matters. Scientism is the act of creating theories for the purpose of influencing public opinion – outcome driven.

If the proponents of the R3, recruitment, retention, reactivation, really want to become effective, they must return to the beginning. This involves finding enough “deep pockets” to properly fund an all out effort to infiltrate the schools and the media to propagandize this country about the benefits of hunting, etc. Once that has been accomplished, a lot will change. Not only will there be a return to the activity of hunting, but it will, once again, be supported by millions more. This change in attitude will take care of just about all the rest of the hunting community’s problems, including a disappearance of brainwashed wildlife managers who don’t know what they are doing and are operating under the smoke and mirrors of the environmentalists who taught them and placed them in their jobs.

The disease is much bigger than finding a cure by generating a recruitable interest. Stop kidding yourselves.

Share

Some “Science Experts” Studied Cattle Farting

And a clique of fools believes those “experts” say so; Keep in mind that science just means knowledge and they’re claiming they know it all about cattle.. They are pretenders…

So the argument is that cattle are a huge cause of climate change.. These are “educated” adult people, with what we would or might “believe” are impressive credentials.. So the best thing for the climate is feedlot beef. Which is high in omega 6 sick animals, sick meat.. And that meat makes people sick.. Then of course that meat is sprayed down with a chemical wash known as liquid carbon monoxide.. Not to mention other drugs in the feedlot feed, and other tricks of the trade to make that meat taste good, but appear to be healthy meat.. So the anti grazing environmental gurus are pushing diseased meats from feedlots as better for the environment.. Problem is that met is not better for human health.. Acidic meats cause cancer not just in people but in animals.. George Wuerthner would serve you burger and steaks that have had the tumors and puss removed.. Wuerthner is a classic example of playing the game of making many misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change arguments against other contrary arguments that are possibly just as misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change. It’s a vicious circle of bullshit by academiac-quacks..

“Cattle are by far and away the most significant source of GHG emissions of any livestock group. The simplest and best way that any individual can reduce their GHG emissions is to stop producing and eating beef.”—George Wuerthner

So apparently even the ranch where I buy grass raised grass finished high in omega 3 non acidic high in alkalinity beef on their own 4,000 acres should shut down their business to please this pseudo science charlatan George Wuerthner..

“Grass fed beef is even worse. “Studies have shown that grass-fed cattle produce 20% more methane in their lifetime than grain-fed cattle. This is due to two different factors:
1) cattle naturally emit more methane when digesting grass. 2) grass-fed cattle reach market weight more slowly than feedlot cattle, so they’re emitting methane over a longer time (Marshall, 2010).” (Marshall, J. (2010, January 27). Grass-Fed Beef Has Bigger Carbon Footprint.

“Even if grazing could, under some circumstances, increase soil carbon, this must be balanced against the GHG emissions that result from livestock production. Depending on what is included in the accounting, domestic livestock are responsible for between 14% to 50% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Even at the lower 14% figure, this is more than all global transportation from airplanes to cars.”—George Wuerthner

George is crazy as a shit house rat.. Brainwashed fool extraordinaire.. And thats being kind, perhaps he knows he’s pushing deindustrialization for the purpose of depopulation… That then would make him as evil as a shit house rat…

It’s astonishing how the Luciferian’s behind the Global Warming CC=33 Climate Change Hoax have formulated so many twists and turns in the scientific assumptions rhetoric of their UNEP eugenics depopulation agenda..

Stop growing healthy food and eat poison is the bottom line coming out of the environmental cults scientific rhetoric…

The U.N.E.P. United Nations Environmental Policies and “Globalist” Biodiversity Assessment is a Luciferian plan in implementation at this time being an imposed famine designed to smash the middle class, to destroy that class to the maximum extent possible and to starve as many people to death as possible while doing it.. Destruction of the economic model that supports that class.. Of course this operation will destroy the poorer classes as well.. According to that tome the ultimate destroyer of the ecosystems environments is over population of direct drivers and indirect drivers causing all environmental impacts.. Depopulation is their solution.. Including the UNEP clones that advocate for those policies… What we’re observing experiencing is the evolved process similiar to the process of imposed crashing of the economy that caused the Great Depression.. Which was an orchestrated depopulation event.. The advocates of these polices who will be victims of these policies are extremely ignorant people…

An idiot can be defined in rational terms as someone who thinks in terms of “belief” rather than ‘proof’ as in the assessment of known facts. Those who are True Believers, have no use for facts, they simply appeal to the authority of the creed of their choice of scientific texts. Science is another man made religion that is baseless theory taken on faith and has been politicized thus further destroyed by political bias.. There are those who become dogmatic in their fields in science, and leap to unfounded conclusions just like other religious people of other man made up religions do.. The cult of United Nations Environmental-ism Policies of which the WLNs cult are clones of is no exception..

Basically what is being said by George Wuerthner is that over population of average people is the cause of environmental destruction, climate change, more so than the elites owned mega international corporations that essentially make all of the legislated rules used to manage the herd of citizens.. It’s us not the Luciferian elites.. Not their wars of aggression, not their vast array of nuclear power plants, large over populated over grown cities, not their millions upon millions of planes..

Not their NASA rhetoric, not the blasting off of rockets into no where space, not their fossil fuels that we could live without when we know that the technology to go all electric is suppressed, and the steam engine technology that has been suppressed.. It’s your healthy disease free cattle.. It’s those millions of elk those wolves slaughtered that kept most of us away from the toxic meats coming out of the feedlots.. Keep in mind at the same time this clique of cultists preach that millions of farting large carnivores eating millions of elk and buffalo is a healthy ecosystem.. The hypocrisy on display by the UNEPTITARDS of the WLNs clique is astonishing..

The United Nations Environmental Policies and Global Biodiversity Assessment – Sustainable Developments Sustainability’s justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonize with the earth’s environment, wildlife and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. That’s a pretty disgusting philosophy to get behind.. You guys are sick…‘Sustainability and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of non elitists average people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as vegan serfs to the ruling elites that dreamed this shenanigan up…

Yep, the WLNs clique is without a doubt a group of UNEP cloned clowns…

Share

Isn’t Man a “Natural” Predator?

I was reading a very interesting article yesterday about how authorities undertook a deer cull on Mount Desert Island (Acadia National Park, Maine) back in the 1960s. It seems that once hunting was halted in the 1930s, deer grew unchecked and became a real nuisance to where something had to be done.

A couple of things caught my eye while reading that somebody needs to point out because it contributes to the problems associated with wildlife management that has become more of an act of Scientism as well as Romance Biology.

In the very first paragraph, we find: “Lately the most frequent “predators” of deer on Mount Desert Island have been motorized vehicles. But for several years in the 1960s, before coyotes migrated to the island, Acadia National Park rangers used rifles and live traps to fill the role of natural predators and cull the herd.” (emboldening added)

Lost in this quest to “save the planet” of which environmentalism is centered around, is the fact that man is a predator and a natural one. The CREATOR did not put plants and animals on this planet for the sole pleasure of environmentalists. As a matter of fact, it was the CREATOR’S intention that Man should have “dominion” over the plants and animals and to use them as a resource including sustenance.

This active Romance Biology believes that man should be removed from any equation about balance within an ecosystem and that the task can be accomplished with just letting things run their course…excluding man. Just how do you do that?

The NATURAL PREDATOR, Man, assumed their role as an “apex” predator and did what was perceived by Man, that natural predator, as a necessity; even though how the culling was done was not the intended way and best use of a natural resource.

It was around 1957 when a park “naturalist” estimated the deer population on Mount Desert Island (MDI) was between 1,000 and 1,500 animals. (The author of the piece chose to incorrectly call the deer “individuals.”)

It was thought that something had to be done to reduce that overgrown population of deer. It was decided to “live trap” and “shoot” the deer (no hunting) in order “to bring the starving herd into proper balance with nature.”

Even when misguided groups and individuals choose to assume the belief that Man is not a part of anything to do with Nature, it is impossible to get away from the very foundation of the need to manage and control certain aspects of our ecosystem in order to bring things into a socially determined “proper balance.”

Because there is no such thing as a “balance of nature” as is presented in propaganda and scientismic Romance Biology, man, who according to the environmentalists cannot be a part of the equation, always steps up to manipulate the existence to bring it in line with perspective ideals of whoever is in charge at the moment. And therefore we have the current definition of “proper balance.”

The hypocrisy here is that even those espousing to a “natural balance” cannot really believe it possible because they are always at work to bring that balance in line with their ideals. It makes little sense.

It is also inexplicable how, to some, it is acceptable to torture an animal, to capture it, or pay men to slaughter them, and yet see hunting, fishing, and trapping as inhumane, unfair, cruel, and something that needs to be stopped.

I think when push comes to shove it really isn’t about whether there is a natural balance, or whether man should be a part of the nature of things, but that a perverted sense that animals should share in the same existence as man, and thus hunting them for sport, food, or trophies, is wrong; but slaughtering them to fulfill ideals is acceptable.

Strange.

Share

Advice and Suggestions to the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife

A reader sent me a copy of the Maine Sportsman, specifically George Smith’s article about his “advise” to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). After reading it, I thought perhaps I would offer something similar. Sometimes I am accused of being only critical of the MDIFW seldom offering constructive criticism or even suggestions on better or different ways in which to do things.

Smith writes of the need to “unlock that door” that prohibits visitors access to the commissioner of the MDFIW. I understand the concept and how convenient it would be to just “drop in” someday and chat with the commissioner. I would like to think that the real situation playing at the offices of the MDIFW has more to do with security than a want to lock themselves up and separate them from the public. I might be wrong. We do live in a strange time in which most people are always aware and subjected to enhanced security measures.

TURKEYS

George writes about what he would do about turkey management and the role that hunting plays in that management. For the most part I think he brings up some good points, i.e. too many turkeys, too few hunters, and the barrier of license fees that prohibit more people from trying or getting involved in turkey hunting and harvesting a turkey that would aide the MDIFW with their management goals.

Originally, I had thought that Smith’s idea of including turkey hunting as part of a Big Game Hunting License wouldn’t fly because the MDIFW would not be willing to give up that revenue from turkey license fees. Is there a trade-off here? Will somehow opening up the turkey season to reduced cost (and loss of fees to MDIFW) be made up in other ways? Perhaps.

I think that consensus must be reached as to whether there are too many turkeys and how critical it is that turkey populations be reduced. If, more people gained interest in turkey hunting, perhaps down the road, as populations came more in line with management goals, turkey license fees could be levied again. If a reduction in the number of turkeys is urgently needed, and I think if we haven’t gotten there yet we soon will, then the MDIFW must do what is expedient to make the reductions in numbers necessary to be responsible for the healthy management of these game birds.

FISHERIES

Fisheries is far from my strong point and knowledge base. I am not at all that qualified to offer the MDIFW advice on how to specifically manage the fisheries in the State of Maine. How fortunate for some.

MOOSE

Odd isn’t it, in many ways, that some are opposed to the reduction of moose populations to mitigate the winter ticks’ destruction of the moose herd but think nothing about advocating the complete destruction of a herd of deer to get rid of Lyme disease. Perhaps if more evidence pointed a finger at the health risk to humans from the winter tick, mindsets might change.

I have written extensively on Maine’s moose and what I believe to be the need to bring the moose population in Maine to levels that seriously reduce the presence and perpetuation of winter ticks that are inhumanely and unnecessarily causing moose to suffer and die during long and cold winters.

Smith laments about the loss of businesses associated with moose watching now that Mother Nature took over where wildlife management failed. During the heyday of the overgrown moose populations, some scrambled and took advantage, as any good entrepreneur might do, looking for ways to exploit the abundant moose for profit. It might have been fun while it lasted but the lesson that should be learned here might be at what price do we exploit any wildlife animal for lucre? As grown adults we should see that having enough moose around that many got into the business of moose watching tours was but a flash in that pan. Time to move on. We have learned that attempting to grow moose in numbers for capitalistic enterprises is a terrible thing to do to the animal – part of the downside of attempting to manage any species while being driven by social demands.

More recent studies are suggesting what some of us knew a long time ago – that too many moose was the cause of the aggressive expanse of winter ticks resulting in high mortality rates on the large beast.

The MDIFW should move quickly to determine at what population Maine’s moose will be most healthy while still providing opportunities for Maine residents to harvest a moose and fill their freezers.

I suggest that the MDIFW, once establishing moose populations, based on sound science and not social demands, issue enough permits or a long enough season to bring the population under a control that reduces the tick infestation. Once that is accomplished, permit for the future can be issued accordingly. Letting Mother Nature do the job is not only irresponsible but is a waste of a terrific natural resource.

DEER

Smith tells readers that the MDIFW stopped managing deer in northern Maine and only “manages” moose. I don’t know if this is actually an official position taken by the MDIFW, but it appears there is at least quite a bit of evidence to support that statement.

Smith claims that because Maine failed to protect winter habitat in Northern and Western Maine, the deer herd “was lost.” I concur the deer herd was lost but I think it had other influences than just a loss of habitat. A lot of things have changed over the years, one thing being the behavior of the deer. While deer are learning how to adapt to that loss of winter habitat, we humans remain locked in our unadaptable behavior of insisting on things being the way they were when our fathers hunted the whitetails.

Each time I have listened to the worn out excuse that deer have disappeared because of loss of winter habitat, I have always asked why, if that is true, thousands of acres of old winter habitat, still in winter habitat condition, is void of deer? Never an answer.

Loss of winter habitat in the classical sense, can and does have an effect on the deer population. Attempting to somehow “manage” deer to return to unwanted winter habitat, is an example of managers failing to learn and adjust to changes of the deer population and their habits. When we see this failure, one can’t help but wonder how much we can rely on the deer managers “estimate” of deer populations and other management shortcomings.

We failed to learn quickly enough that attempting to manage moose populations at high enough levels that tourism benefitted, the moose herd suffered terribly due to exposure and anemia from blood sucking winter ticks. Deer populations are suffering but perhaps in different ways because the ecosystem in which they have traditionally comfortably inhabited have and are changing. The deer are adapting as best they can but our management tactics are not. Evidently the preference is to give up.

Too many moose compete with deer. Too many large predators kill deer and fawns and this is challenging the stability of the deer population and in some places we are witnessing the unsustainability of a deer herd. Are we to just blame it on loss of winter habitat and Climate Change or should we be responsible stewards of our wild game animals?

If we are to mitigate the cause for the lack of deer in portions of Northern and Western Maine, isn’t the responsible thing to do is to reduce the bear and coyote populations to give the deer a chance? If we simply stop deer management because loss of habitat and Climate Change is the excuse, what then can we expect of all of our game and wildlife species going forward?

Managers have a responsibility to care for all of these game species. Giving up on one species in certain areas, tells me that there is lack of knowledge and poor management skills involved. The epitome of wildlife management failures is giving in to some man’s fictitious notion that the globe is warming and the northern border of the whitetail deer’s habitat is moving south, while our neighbors to the north continue to work at managing their deer. If Climate Change is causing such chaos that is forcing the destruction of habitat for deer, then it makes sense that other more northern species are migrating south according to the changes. Is this happening? No. A warming climate, as claimed, should be reducing the affects of severe winters. Is that happening? No.

There’s little more that managers can do to stop the perceived reduction of winter habit and deer habitat in general short of demanding more totalitarian tactics to take property and property rights away from people and corporations. It’s easy, from afar, to stand in judgement over landowners, demanding they relinquish their rights as property owners in order to enhance the habitat of any wild animal. The tough part to deer management is maximizing what is left and working in earnest to make the best of what we have. Even if deer densities in Northern and Western Maine aren’t at ideal levels, is that reason enough to simply walk away and say, we tried?

There is no need to kill off all the coyotes/wolves in Maine or reduce bear populations to levels that give us more deer than are needed to balance a very valuable resource. All that is stopping this effort is the MDIFW’s insistence on caving to social demands. I suppose to them in the short term it is easier to cave in than to stand up to those demands supported by strong scientific evidence. And that may be the actual problem. Does the MDIFW have or want the strong scientific evidence?

BEAR

The MDIFW has a very good bear study program. Some claim that program is the envy of all other fish and wildlife departments. Only radical animal rights groups or individuals would argue that there are too many bear. The MDIFW publicly admits they need to reduce the bear population, but so far, have done little to solve that problem. Perhaps they are moving at a speed that only politics and social demands allow them. Time for change.

Having too many bears presents several problems – public safety and a disruption of population goals of other species such as deer and moose. Fortunately, bear hibernate, otherwise God only knows what kind of destruction they would wreak on weakened deer in deer wintering areas.

Some studies suggest that the presence of bear has more negative impact on deer than do coyotes/wolves. Maybe the current studies that the MDIFW are conducting on moose and deer will help us gain better understanding on this concept.

Regardless, it appears Maine must reduce bear populations. But how? One problem that jumps out immediately is the power of the guides and outfitters placing demands on the MDIFW to manage bears according to their wishes that would best maximize their business profits. While it is understandable that this is important to the private enterprises, should the MDIFW continue to allow increased public safety concerns and actual reductions in deer populations, and perhaps even moose, simply to appease these groups? Of course not, but when will the MDIFW move to do anything about it? Perhaps the time is now.

Like with turkey hunting, Maine needs to find easier and less expensive ways to encourage more hunters to take up the challenge. Hunters that have little interest in bear hunting might change their mind if hunting bear were part of a Big Game License all the time during open season on bear.

Bag limits should be raised. The late summer bear hunt should have a minimum of a two-bear limit – perhaps three in some areas. If that doesn’t do the trick, then a Spring bear hunt may be necessary. Regulations can be employed to mitigate the killing of cubs as has been proven in other places that have Spring bear hunts.

The MIDFW has done a respectable job of working to ward off the radical animal rights groups bent on closing down bear hunting. They should increase and improve this effort to include everything they do with wildlife management. Two bear referendums have proven that maintaining a passive posture and making management decisions based on social demands is not only irresponsible, but ridiculous, almost childish. If wildlife managers and their administration don’t have or believe the science necessary to responsibly managed their wildlife, they should be out of a job. There should be little room given to social demands when it comes to scientifically managing game.

OPERATIONS

There are certain aspects of running a fish and game department that should be within the control of the commissioner, who, of course, answers to the governor. Open and closed seasons should be within the control of the commissioner. That person, along with the managers and biologists in the department, are the ones who should know what is going on and what is needed, not the Humane Society of the United States, other animal rights groups, or even the Legislature. Such social and political powers spoil any scientific approach at wildlife management. It may take an act of the Legislature to effect such changes.

We live in a time where these powerful animal rights and environmentalists have gained control over our factories of higher indoctrination. The result of this is now showing up in our fish and game departments where the concerns are more about the “rights” of animals and away from a consumptive, use of a natural resources approach to wildlife management.

Scientifically, it has been proven that the North American Model of Wildlife Management works. Those opposed to this form of wildlife management know this and have been working tireless to “change the way wildlife management is discussed.” Along with this has come the social demands to place equal rights and protections on animals as are given to humans.

Outdoor advocates, hunters, trappers, fishermen, as well as all those who understand and believe in the necessity of consumptive use to best manage and control wildlife, should demand that the commissioner be more selective and demanding of those that are hired as biologists and wildlife managers. Candidates should be screened as to their idealism and positions on animal rights and hunting, fishing, and trapping. To responsibly utilize hunting and fishing as part of the overall plans for wildlife management, cannot have room for animal rights advocates or those opposed to this system.

Some have called for money from general taxation to support the MDIFW. It is my opinion this would be a very big mistake. First of all, before any MORE money is dumped in the lap of this department, a complete audit should be undertaken so that all will know exactly what every penny is spent on and where every penny comes from to run the department. If more money is needed, then that has to come from fee increases and not from general taxation. Here’s why.

With money sent to the MDIFW from general taxation, along with it will be demands from the general taxpayer for bigger representation. This opens the door even further for more infiltration by environmentalists who want to “change the way we discuss wildlife management.”

We have seen this already. Where once the MDIFW used to be the department of fish and game, other states have gotten rid of their fish and game names completely, replaced with departments of natural resources.

With a weakening of the managerial understanding and knowledge of how wildlife management should run, further expedites the dreaded end to responsible wildlife management, replaced by VooDoo Science and Romance Biology.

The only way the MDIFW can survive as a bonafide fish and game department is if it remains out of the control of Environmentalism.

The MDIFW does many things well. Some things they have little control over. Certainly there is room for improvement and if others, like me, realize that if we don’t do something to change those things that are sending us in the wrong direction and away from the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the good that we enjoy now will soon be lost. Let’s not let that happen.

Share

The Results of Socialistic Romance Biology Wildlife Management and Scape-Goating

I just can’t seem to leave this subject alone. I get angry when I see governments doing what governments do. The time and money wasted on useless, post-normal, bureaucratic B.S. that ends in worthless and trivial nonsense that amounts to no more than a hill of ________. (You fill in the blank.)

Earlier I wrote about Maine’s plan to subcontract out a portion of their black bear management plan. In that article I made the comment: “…why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

“Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?”

And then it donned on me. Recently the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) took a similar tactic when they wasted (in my opinion) money hiring a scientismistic private entity to conduct a “survey” to help MDIFW decide how they should do their jobs. It has always puzzled me that MDIFW refuses to open their ears and communicate with the boots-on-the-ground outdoors people but are eager and willing to hire some environmentalist-trained, biased company to tell them how to manage wildlife and outdoor recreation when said company knows squat about Maine or the people in it.

We have seen results of this corrupt environmentalist, Human Interaction, “survey” in the recent big game management plans. I think MDIFW seeking “outside” assistance is just another nail in the coffin to go along with the fraudulent management plans that apparently the department is incapable of crafting or too scared to do without laying the blame and responsibility on the results of the survey, i.e. some outside private business for profit entity.

When you combine the actions of MDIFW leadership over the past 2 or 3 years, I am left with no other explanation as to why Maine, once thought of as the leader in wildlife management, also once a leader in big game hunting and world class fishing, is so eager to do a double-flush of the toilet making sure all that was once good is now gone.

When nothing changes with the bear management plans and reaching the goals crafted in the new plan is a failure, MDIFW can conveniently blame whoever or whatever it is that told them what they ought to do.

MDIFW has had multiple recommendations pushed in front of them concerning bear management. It’s laughable that MDIFW will buckle and cave to the demands of environmentalists and guides, refusing to do anything constructive to reduce the bear population out of fear of reprisals from guides, environmentalists, and animal rights groups, while shutting their ears and eyes to the real sportsmen. And then, we see this act of seeking an outside opinion. You can’t make this stuff up.

Because MDIFW refuses to do what’s right, they are slaves to guides, outfitters and the environmental movement. The result, they claim, is they can’t find (wink-wink) a solution to the supposed bear problem.

What will we hear next? MDIFW has decided to award their bear management subcontract to a subsidiary of the Humane Society of the United States based in China?

Share

The Mythical Bear Study Extremists Seem to Adore

The other day I wrote about how the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) announced that it was seeking bids from private enterprise to assist them with devising a “model” to better control the black bear population in Maine.

*Important Note*(I find that the MDIFW’s credibility on wildlife management issues dwindles the more they talk. Maybe that’s why they are so close-lipped about many things. I say this because here we have a situation in which the MDIFW is coming off announcements of the release of their future big game management plans which calls for less focus on counting the numbers of deer, bear, moose, turkeys, etc. and placing more focus on a “healthy” population. Evidently, MDIFW is discovering how difficult it must be for them to manage these game species without spending time counting. As such, it now appears the MDIFW has reached out to private enterprise to help them COUNT.)

As a result of the latest announcement of seeking outside help, the Media has erupted with information from every Tom (LOL), Dick, and Harry either for or against this idea, which seems to be going hand in hand with the announcement that newly elected governor Janet Mills has selected the current head of the Division of Wildlife at MDIFW, Judy Camuso, to be the next commissioner of the department.

In the fray, it seems members of the media and heads of animal rights groups have crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Mills’ appointment of Camuso is a big mistake because she did her job under Commissioner Woodcock and was his mouthpiece during the last bear referendum.

It should be noted that these groups and much of the echo-chamber Press, will not give up this fight until they get what they want. Eventually, they will.

In many a previous discussion about bear hunting, more specifically using bait as a hunting method, those who opposed baiting bear (realistically they oppose all hunting regardless of method.) have never had any “scientific” studies to support their claims, until 4 people from the University of Southern Maine created a study of their own – a “model” I might add, and most of us should know by now what modeling does when it comes to science. Which brings me to the point of this article.

The so-called “study” can be found at this link.

I’m not going to spend a great deal of time going through the entire study to point out the flaws. However, in order that people can make intelligent decisions, especially when it comes to voter referendums, somebody ought to tell the truth and point out the realities, especially when it comes to such things as “models” used as a “scientific” foundation to build a political argument.

First, I should say that it is my opinion that much of what was published in this study is credible, however falsely based on Natural Regulation. What is missing is information that would seriously manipulate the results that were concluded from the modeling done. Unless, you are intelligent enough to read and understand the entire study, cherry picking quotes and statements here and there to promote one’s agenda is dishonest at best.

Throughout the study, the authors repeatedly state that they “made assumptions” and purposely did not include data that would have altered the results of the study, but stated they “were satisfied with the outcomes.” *Note* – If the outcome is what is desired, what’s not to be satisfied about it?

When anyone models information to arrive at some kind of conclusion, it is far too easy to manipulate the input in order to obtain a desired outcome. This outcome, it is realized, becomes a powerful tool for the very same reason that animal rights groups are cherry-picking information to substantiate their agendas. This is precisely the definition of “Scientism.”

I doubt that the authors of this study are any more qualified to create it than I am. I will note that references and resources, of course were hand-picked. In addition, I will give very little credibility to any information used as a reference in a so-called scientific study that uses Wikipedia. If you don’t understand this statement then you will not understand the basis of my entire article.

Modeling, as I said, is far too easy to manipulate input to get the output desired. I’m not definitively saying the authors deliberately went out of their way to devise the outcome they desired. Only you can make that assessment yourselves.

Therefore, guess work and estimates are useless in deriving any conclusions that are anything but guess work and estimates – garbage in and garbage out.

Data used by the study writers, included data that comes from the MDIFW website. Ironic isn’t it that those animal rights advocates will jump all over hand-selected data from this study (much of which comes from MDIFW) to aid and abet their passions but in the same breath curse the department for being ignorant of bear management. How is that?

The MDIFW will be the first to admit their data on species populations are estimates – estimate in, estimate out. Studies and Modeling supports estimates and guesses.

Even though as I stated, much of what is written is reasonable if only it was more honestly stated that their results are only estimates of the inexact data they had to work with. The truth is there are so many variables in the life cycles, ecosystem changes, and management plans, attempting to claim that baiting bears causing the population to grow is really quite dishonest.

Too many simplistic assumptions are made in order for the authors to reach the conclusions that they did. One that just kept jumping out at me was the bulk of their modeling and the results they obtained were based on the belief that in the late Summer and early Fall, when bear hunting and baiting is being done, bears naturally eat only beechnuts. Really? In off years and in areas where there are no beech trees, the poor bears must starve to death.

As the study states, most biologist agree that bears prefer natural food over the slop baiters put out to entice them, and yet, so many conclusions are made based on this notion that bears eat only beechnuts in the Fall.

Another issue I find incomplete, or dishonest if that’s what you choose to believe, is the study doesn’t even mention where baiting takes place and how the food used in baiting can contribute to a false “carry capacity” as a percentage of the total statewide bear population. If it is true that baiting bears contributes millions of calories and 7 million pounds of “unnatural” food for bears, what is the percentage of bears that are actually getting bait food versus those that never see it, or at least what comes in a barrel in the middle of the woods? This study is void of such discussion.

I will repeat, there are just too many variables to be able to make the claims these authors did that baiting bears causes the population statewide to increase every year, evidently with no end in sight.

I will also point out that much of the information contained in this study is based on the myth of natural regulation. Figures and formulas are presented based on the theory of natural regulation. There is no such thing in the context of which it was presented in this study. Natural Regulation, perhaps more accurately described as Natural Irregularity, everything is a constant changing of positive and negative feedback loops. These loops provide large swings up and down of species population. Odd that these authors even used their own devised positive and negative feedback loops and yet somehow those loops only contribute to a growing bear population when baiting is being done.

But we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Although many choose to only hand-select information that benefits them and their political agendas, the authors offer conclusions and remedies to what they perceive as a management problem. Let’s look.

The authors conclude that bear baiting increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” and based on their findings the current bear management plan will not reduce the bear population. *Note*If baiting of bears increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” then in theory, and using the same logic used in this modeling, unless there is a constant increase in the number of bear hunters and the amount of bait being spread throughout the bears’ ecosystem, then why doesn’t the “false” carrying capacity created by baiting, level off and thus the population of bears level off as part of their false natural regulation?

I think I would have to agree with at least the part that says that unless the MDIFW changes something the bear population is going to continue to grow provided all other variables remain relatively constant.

The authors make recommendations as to what MDIFW can do. It might appear to me that all of those opposed to bear hunting deliberately avoid mentioning these recommendations. Who can blame them? I might add that these animal rights people want only hunting, trapping, and fishing to be banned and let “Natural Regulation” take over. Part of me wishes this would happen just so I can say I told you so.

The recommendations given in a nutshell are these:

First, ban baiting. Their model “suggests” if baiting was banned only about 700 fewer bears would be killed. (Note – I wonder if that number includes any of the bears they chose to not include in the model that shows baiting grows the population?)

Second, encourage the hunting of female bears and cubs. GASP!!! How dare anyone whose data I used to promote anti-hunting agendas suggest killing momma and baby bears!! GASP!! (again)

Third – and this is the one that floors me – continue the use of bait but switch the bait from junk food to “natural beechnuts.” Say what? If the argument is that baiting artificially grows the carrying capacity and thus artificially grows the population, how then is switching the bait going to change much. Is it that we have now become more and more conscious of the bears’ diet? Yes, I have also read that as well.

So where do the beechnuts come from? Doing a quick Google search I couldn’t find any stores that market and sell beechnuts. So……? Are hunters and guides supposed to start collecting bushel baskets and hiring people to go out and pick beechnuts to bait deer with? Maybe there’s an after-school job for some young boys and girls harvesting beechnuts to provide bear guides with bait.

If the bait used for bear hunting is supposed to be changed from junk food to natural beechnuts, the ONLY way I know of to do this without altering the natural ecosystem carrying capacity, is to pick the beechnuts from the trees within that ecosystem and make feeding by the bears easier. Remember in the “regulated” world of Natural Regulation, beechnuts cannot be brought into an area where they did not naturally appear, otherwise what’s the difference in what you use for bait unless the concern is to provide a healthy diet and cut down on tooth decay in bears?

Part of the circular, confusing reasoning used in this study, the conclusions derived, and suggestions made shows up when the authors suggest that introducing bears to human food will, “teach bears to associate humans with food.” Smart critters aren’t they. I’ve always asked the question and never given an honest answer, if bears are so damned smart that they learn to associate human food with humans, are they equally as smart to learn that human food might mean a bullet in the butt?

There will always be disagreements with wildlife management. In recent years, as the culture of this nation morphs into something I perceive as perverted, things have gone far beyond disagreements in wildlife management practices. They have gone to a point where people are demanding an end to long-held traditions of hunting, trapping, and fishing. Their beliefs cause them to take whatever direction they need to in order to get their way.

Ironic it is, that some who advocate for animals rights and protection, even wishing to deny a person’s inalienable right to eat the foods that LORD GOD ALMIGHTY provided us, take offense to anyone who counters their idealistic Romance Biology, as though we are supposed to just shut up and do as we are told…by them.

Share