June 27, 2017

Maine Moose Ticks And the Death of Man-Caused Global Warming

Climate Change, known to anyone with a brain as weather, can have effects on the growth and perpetuation of  Dermacentor albipictus – the moose tick or winter tick. Anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change does not exist and is dying in its tracks, and yet scientists and wildlife managers cling relentlessly to its shoestrings. Perhaps it’s the convenience of always having an excuse for everything that doesn’t go as planned or even for failing to do your job. Just blame it on Climate Change.

Climate Change, which one can only assume is always used in the context of Anthropogenic Climate Change, is 100% based on computer modeling. In other words it is fake. Actual temperature takings worldwide are not only flawed and basically useless information, but they aren’t living up to the hype of “we’re all going to die drown.” And so, the only recourse is to cling to computer modeling because the modeling can be manipulated to achieve the desired results, not necessarily matching reality.

To the honest person, computer modeling is a waste of time. This society is so completely addicted to technology that we fail miserably in learning how to think and observe. If the models don’t give us what we want, we will simply manipulate things until they do. How dire will things become once the entire world is dependent upon Artificial Intelligence, which is frighteningly on our doorstep?

Another example of the failures of computer modeling was reported at Powerline. The big cheeses of Al Gore’s money-making fake anthropogenic Climate Change, are trying to find ways to explain how their computer modeling has miserably failed them. Within the same report, we learn that computer modeling that was used to predict that by the year 2050 the United States would be 100% employing nothing but wind, solar and hydro power, also is failing and scientists are lining up in droves to protest the use and abuse of computer modeling in claiming the high ground on science.

But there’s money in it!

So, how will wildlife managers in Maine and elsewhere around the globe, explain their theoretic messes, once finally the fairy tale of man causing Climate Change is buried? Or will they remain the relic holdovers, forever clinging, bitterly, to their guns and Bibles hockey stick graphs while camped out at the beaches waiting for the water level to rise? (And waiting for cold winters to kill off all the ticks)

Whether it’s moose ticks, Lyme-causing ticks or Aunt Mabel’s lousy tasting homemade jelly, blaming global warming for it is representative of lousy use of a legitimate scientific method. Believing that the science of Anthropogenic Climate Change is “settled” has done the science community a grave disservice.

Once Artificial Intelligence rules the world, everything will be “settled” once and for all.

Share

Out of Control “Any-Deer Permit” Allocations?

You can do most anything with numbers to make a point or to raise a lot of questions. If you add some smoke and mirrors, the sky is the limit in what you can do.

Maine deer managers are proposing to increase “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) to over 66,000 – a tripling of the number of permits issued in 2011 (26,390). Has Maine’s deer population tripled statewide or within Wildlife Management Districts in six years?

State deer managers use the issuance of ADPs in specific Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) to control deer populations. Reports are stating that deer managers say they now need to reduce deer populations in some WMDs and therefore the need to increase ADPs. However, they also report that they are going to go ahead and issue some ADPs in WMDs that are in desperate need to grow the deer population simply to “provide hunting opportunity.”

Not that many years ago, Maine told people that the deer population exceeded 300,000 and the goal was to grow it even larger. During those banner years (if they even existed) ADPs issued amounted to around the mid -70,000. Now one report from a spokesperson with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) said the state has 240,000 deer. I doubt that, but we have few options than to use that as a baseline.

What doesn’t quite add up for me is even when taking into account the issuance of ADPs according to the needs of each WMD, how can the issuing of 66,000 ADPs for a population of 240,000 deer be reasonable when 70,000 permits were issued when it was guessed the deer population to be over 300,000? Something has changed.

By issuing permits in WMDs that have in the range of 4-6 deer per square mile, simply to “provide hunting opportunity,” seems irresponsible, especially when managers claim they are trying to figure out how to grow deer in these regions.

Another question that needs to be asked, it appears that the largest increases in ADPs come in regions where the human population is higher. The MDIFW has also said that it is important to reduce the number of deer in some Southern and Central regions to reduce the spread of tick-born diseases. Is this decision based on pressure from those claiming to have scientific evidence on this issue, or does MDIFW actually have scientific evidence to show the need to reduce deer numbers? We know that MDIFW, and most all wildlife management departments nationwide, manage wildlife mostly according to the demands of the public, while putting science on the far back burner. Is that what’s going on here and how much so?

It seems odd to me that MDIFW seems to be saying that too many deer causes the population to become unhealthy and may cause a public health concern. For that reason they are eager to cut down the deer population. However, when it comes to moose management, too many moose has resulted in a severe outbreak of winter ticks, which are in turn killing the moose population, and yet MDIFW wants to continue to grow the moose population. What’s going on anyway?

At a time when Maine is still in need of growing and stabilizing a deer herd, even preparing for the next round of “severe winters,” it may be necessary in a few WMDs to reduce deer numbers (a feat difficult to achieve because there is limited land access to hunt), but seems utterly irresponsible to issue any ADPs in WMDs that have no deer to begin with.

One has to wonder if this effort to appease hunters isn’t more about finding ways to cover up the decade long dismal deer harvest.

Share

There Is No Credibility When Talking Moose and Global Warming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

The Only Way To Control Moose Ticks Is……

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

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

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Old Hunter says:

 

Share

Islesboro Residents Concerned Over Lyme Disease, But Not Concerned Enough Evidently

ISLESBORO — Early this decade, concerns over a large deer population – and the spread of Lyme disease from deer ticks – helped to unite residents of Islesboro.

But a special shotgun hunt for three years did little to thin the whitetail herd. And today, the island’s 650 year-rounds residents are divided over how – or even whether – to reduce it.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maine Gov. “Invasive Species” Portal Evidently Intended to Keep Environmentalists and Animal Righters Happy

The State of Maine has evidently developed, or is developing, a website portal geared at addressing concerns over invasive species. It appears there is concern about invasive fish and marine wildlife, along with invasive plants, diseases and parasites that might effect plants including agricultural crops, but there appears to be something missing from this portal. Where is the section about invasive animals? Surely there are invasive animals that pose just as a big a threat to Maine’s ecosystems than odd fish and the spreading of some plants.

If I were to pick just one invasive wild animal that is very destructive to Maine, I would have to pick the coyote. It’s easy for most, including employees at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), to address only the obvious about coyotes, i.e. killing deer, lynx, livestock, turkeys, grouse, etc. but it is exceptionally inconvenient to discuss the more than 30 diseases and parasites the mixed breed canine spreads throughout the state.

We already know, and the MDIFW has done a superb job of covering up the disease, that moose are now victims of what the department prefers to call “lungworm.” Lungworm is a common man’s term for Hytadid disease from the parasite Echinococcus granulosus. The diseases cause the growth of tumors in the lungs, liver, heart, and other places hindering the moose from having the best physical conditioning to escape predator danger. Because moose are known to be infected, it’s only a matter of time before deer will become so and any and all other wildlife ungulates and livestock, including sheep, cows, and pigs.

The Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) parasite is carried and spread by coyotes, along with as many, if not more, than thirty other diseases. Oh, and did I mention that E.g. can be deadly to humans?

As populations of coyotes persist and grow across Maine, livestock, pets, and humans will be at risk from these diseases.

But we mustn’t talk about this because we are talking about an animal that some mentally ill people prefer to protect and perpetuate than insure the health of our people and the health and proper management of our wildlife and ecosystems in general.

However, consider the following information. It was brought to my attention a short time ago when a colleague asked how any species can be invasive. The answer was more or less simple. The species must come from outside of the Firmament, i.e. the earth, and the “waters above” and the “waters below.”

Man evidently has made the decision that starting at some random point in history, species that existed and where they were found would be how things must be kept. Odd and ironic that environmentalists love their wolves and other wild canines. They love to tell people how that millions of years ago “it is believed” that wolves/coyotes came to North America over that infamous “ice bright” somewhere around the Bering Straits. Beginning at that time, and moving forward, evidently everything else might be an invasive species. It would seem to me that if the wolf/coyote migrated here over an “ice bridge” during a period of “global cooling” (was that NOT a natural event?) then it was either an invasive species or there are no such things as invasive species.

Evidently an invasive species is some kind of plant or animal life that upsets the environmental narrative. If it’s on this “planet” how can it be invasive? And who left which man to be in charge of deciding at what point of time in history a line is drawn and any movement of plant or animal after that point is considered invasive and therefore not wanted. It would appear that using this same kind of thinking, or lack there of, that a strong argument could be made that the United States of America corporation is made up almost entirely by “invasive species” of humans.

The hypocrisy in all this is that the environmentalists want to control everything about our environment and ecosystems, but only to the point of which they want it. All else is wrong. Management of wildlife as a resource for food and products (hunting, fishing and trapping) evidently is unacceptable manipulation but playing gODs and deciding what stays and what goes is alright.

Doesn’t make much sense at all, but H.L. Menken, reminded us, that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Share

“Genetic Evidence” Suggests Nothing – Man Does All the Suggesting and it’s Always Biased

Maine media sources seem to have some kind of attraction right now with the hybrid wild canine inhabiting the Maine woods. They like to call it a hybrid, I suppose because in their minds, lacking any real scientific knowledge of anything, a wild canine sounds more authentic or maybe even worthy of man’s affections and protections. Would the event be worthy if it involved a mutt or a mongrel?

Technically, it’s really nothing but a cross breed of dog – canine. It’s also a travesty that did not need to happen, could be mitigated, but won’t be due to perverse and ignorant notions about animals.

An article that ran in the Portland Press Herald recently rightfully stated that the “coyotes” that are found in Maine, are not native. This is true. They are an invasive dog that has a mixture of genetics; some breed of wolf, some breed of coyotes, some breeds of wild dogs and some breeds of domestic dogs. In short they are a nasty nuisance. However nobody wants to discuss the realities of the disease-carrying creature, a creature that is a threat to so many things, including a threat to the actual species of wolves and coyotes. Some claim they are protecting every living canine, wild, semi-wild or domestic by letting them grow out of control. They know not what they do.

But I’ve written about this so much that the ends of my fingers are worn to stubs.

What I intended to point out is what is written in this article. The author shares comments from a leading researcher of coyote DNA at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. The researcher explains how he thinks the “hybrid” canines got to Maine and much of the East Coast. He is quoted as saying, “Genetic evidence suggests it happened when the wolf population in the Great Lakes was at its lowest point when they were heavily persecuted. So basically some wolf female came into heat and couldn’t find a wolf so bred with the next best thing: a coyote.”

Genetic evidence doesn’t suggest anything. Genetic evidence tells us what the DNA composition is of the wild canines found in the East. How they arrived there is the suggestion of people like this researcher.

If you were to take the time and approach the above statement without bias, fed to us by ignorant media echo chambers, one can quickly see how this researcher approaches his research and forms his “evidence suggests” statements.

He says when the Great Lakes wolf population was at its lowest point (he doesn’t tell us when that was or how that lowest point compares to any other time period, but is very quick to simply state “when they were heavily persecuted”) a female wolf came into heat and the nearest solution happened to be a Western coyote.

Consider the obvious. If the population of wolves in the Great Lakes was at its lowest, unless there is proof that the reduction was something other than an equal reduction of both male and female wolves, the idea that there wasn’t enough male wolves to go around to breed all the females that came into heat, is dishonest at the very best.

As any honest person who knows a lick about dogs, wild or domestic, when any bitch comes into heat, any male dog within nose shot is hot on the track. No dog looks over his possible mating partner to determine whether it is wild or domestic and of what “species” or “breed” it might be. It doesn’t work that way. It really wouldn’t matter whether wolves in the Great Lakes were at the “lowest point” or highest point, if a female wolf comes into heat whoever gets there first gets first dibs.

It appears that the researcher is very quick to blame the cross-breeding on the “heavily persecuted” reduction of wolves. Are we correct to assume that the researcher sees that wolf persecution as being that of man?

What he fails to point out, and probably never will because it may be uncomfortable to speak of as it might pertain to his narrative of wild canine protection, is to ask or point out why the “WESTERN” coyotes had taken up residence or where simply passing through the Great Lakes, as seems to be the conclusion a reader might make.

Even in the writings of Teddy Roosevelt as he traveled the West, hunting and recording his observations of wildlife, he noted that the wild canines he encountered essentially remained separated geographically because, comparatively, there weren’t that many of them. It is believed that all dogs, wild and domestic of today, originated from one species of dog. The rest are more or less mutations and more cross breeding by man, i.e. hybridizing.

When any wild canine species’ or subspecies’ population gets too large – in other words when things get crowded and the habitat will not support more coyotes – they disperse. The dispersing coyotes are generally the males. During this dispersal, they seek territory and a mate. If during that dispersal, the male catches wind of any canine in heat, action begins. So, what happens when man practices to protect every wild canine that exists? Simple, there is more dispersal, driving coyotes and wolves further and further from their points of origin, forcing more and more cross breeding. And we end up with more and more mongrels.

If, as the researcher points out, “some wolf female came into heat” and “bred with a coyote,” the other side of the coin that perhaps the researcher does not want to examine, is that it happened because of too many coyotes. That fact is what caused the dispersal of the coyote to cross paths with the female wolf. It is also possible that a female coyote got bred with a male wolf. This most often occurs with crossing over of territories between wolves and coyotes.

If it is the intention of people to protect the wolf (that is the genetically distinct wolf) then the worse thing that we can do is to insist on protecting those wolves in human-settled landscapes where those wolves have just about a zero percent chance of ever maintaining its genetic makeup. As I pointed out, when any female canine comes into heat, any male canine would be happy to solve the problem. Genetics are ruined. It’s all senseless.

As this phenomenon continues, perpetuated by man’s insistence that wolves and coyotes of any breed or mixture be forced onto the landscapes also occupied by man, there will and is nothing left by a mongrel wild or semi-wild dog spreading disease, killing our pets and livestock and destroying the ecosystems that man has spent hundreds of million dollars to be what might benefit the most of us.

So, please! The next time you read that someone said, “genetics suggest,” just remember that genetics is a science that can only tell a scientist what is the DNA makeup of any living object. That makeup doesn’t “suggest” anything. Only a man can suggest things and in this case, one man is suggesting how a coyote in the West became a mixed breed of wild canine in Maine by breeding with a female wolf in the Great Lakes region that was part of a diminished wolf population due to “persecution.” He might “suggest” that event but could never prove that’s what happened.

Share

Google Alert! Gray Wolf

*Editor’s Note* – Mr. Beers, upon examination of a “Google Alert,” of which I have posted below, responds to the material contained within the alert.

Google Alert! Gray Wolf – by James Beers

“Gag me with a spoon”, I apologize (not really) for such an un-scientific observation about such an important subject in the “news” item below..

Note that this is a public relations piece from an “Endangered Wolf Center” and the St. Louis TV station eager for such a cutesy-tootsy evening news item.

  1. Note the Facebook/Google “Alert” below that I have enlarged where appropriate and remember the “Center” colluded in this bit of tripe:

–          “Mexican Gray Wolf species”; considering this comes from a “scientific”  Center” and “scientists” that collect semen, freeze embryos and create a “world’s first” phenomenon ask yourself, “is a Mexican wolf” a “gray wolf?”  “Is a ‘Mexican’ ‘gray’ wolf a ‘species’?”  The inherent and confusing faux wolf biology is sticking its ugly head out once again.

–          “The world’s first Mexican Wolf pup that was recently born from artificially inseminated frozen embryo here in St. Louis.”  Is it really stunning that you can birth such animals this way?  This has been done for decades with livestock and domestic dogs that coincidentally can breed with these wolves and create viable offspring (does that make them the same species or what?)  Billing this as a “World’s First” reminds me of the Cubs/Pirates game I watched last night.  The Pirates were down by 10 runs in the 8th and brought in a rookie to pitch in his “first” Major League game.  He is a big guy and pitched well but the Pittsburgh announcers had a ball joking about his being “the first native-born Lithuanian to play in the majors” and about his name “Neveraskous” (pronounced by them as “Never ask us”)  Actually, I think Neveraskous was a true big deal and reading this tripe from St. Louis is little more than propaganda.

–          “Endangered breed” is mentioned twice.  So a “breed” is like a basset hound or rat terrier, therefore a wolf is like …?  Does the Endangered Species Act cover “breeds”?  Should the ESA be rebranded as the Endangered Breed Act?  Will the radical enviros and self-serving bureaucrats please notify the bleeding heart pols in Washington so that the “breed” is covered?

–         Consulting the “San Francisco Chronicle” about articles like this  is like consulting Pravda on forecasting the stock market or the Kampala Times about the latest surgical techniques for hip implants.

  1. I should get paid for watching these videos of earnest young women “ooohhing” and “aaahing” in T shirts and/or government uniforms while petting baby wolves while they weave their myths and curses like the witches in Macbeth.

–          “Revered”; wolves are to be “revered”?  Are you kidding me and the rest of the Nation or do you, in your elementary paganism of animal/environment worship, really believe that?

–          You blithely assure us about how those “cute” puppies are “dewormed”, “treated for fleas and ticks” and otherwise treated like offspring of last year’s AKC’s Westminster Dog Show and then instruct the rest of us about how the un-wormed, un-flea/tick-medicated, rabies-susceptible, vectors of over 35 diseases and infections are to be “revered” when we see them?  Are we to get on our knees, put our head between our knees and extend our arms and put our hands on the ground when they come into our yard or when they investigate the school bus stop when the kids are there or when they are killing sheep. Calves, foals, big game wildlife or our dogs?  Note to all you urban teachers putting this dangerous nonsense in your little munchkin’s heads, you will have much to answer for one day when you inevitably awake to the true (nor relative) value of human life that you are so blithely equating to dangerous and deadly predators you are teaching your charges to “revere”.

This “ALERT” and propaganda really expose the faux propaganda of the “science” and government action underpinning the ESA.  This “science” is no more than lies used in the way Hitler defined the “Big Lie” in Mein Kampf when he mentioned a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

To change what is happening, you have to disprove the “science”, take away the financial/political influence if rich NGO’s, remove self-serving bureaucrats, turn off these teachers, get the “truth” out and then convince the politicians hiding under their desks to do the right thing.  No problem.  What do you say President Trump?

Jim Beers

Share

Maine Forest Rangers Want to Burn Ticks Out of the Woods

It appears that the Maine Forest Rangers are considering implementing controlled burns in order to mitigate the problems with ticks. There are many ticks and kinds of ticks and those ticks carry and/or perpetuate several diseases that are zoonotic – can be transferred from animal to human. The controlled burns, it is suggested, will kill many of the ticks. However, such action would not be an ongoing remedy.

I would suppose, as is most often the case, that while suggesting a prescribed burn to control ticks is something to consider, still missing, it seems, is any discussion as to why it has become necessary to do this. Are there more ticks than ever before? And if so, why? Are there less, more or the same number of ticks as ever but now they are laced with disease? If so, why?

Is it a planned event that the majority of the people population, at least in those regions susceptible to tick-borne diseases, are scared enough that they would be willing to do “anything” to mitigate the tick problem?

Odd, isn’t it? I wonder how many of the people who are scared to death of ticks and wouldn’t hesitate to set our forests on fire to kill the ticks, are the same ones who would give their own lives to save any animal that is perpetuating the tick problem?

Reading the comments from people that go along with this article, linked to above, it appears that prescribed burns, being a tool instituted by man to manage and manipulate the ecosystems, as well as mitigate public safety concerns, is an acceptable tool to use. I ask again, how many of these same people are willing to do “anything” to stop man from managing and manipulating ecosystems to save, protect, perpetuate flora and fauna because they believe “Nature” does it best. Last time I checked “Nature” was also in charge of ticks and the diseases they carry.

Are these people suggesting that Mother Nature works best when it’s convenient for them and not so much when it’s not?

Share

Collaring Wild Animals: Scientific Research or Playing With Technology?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows!

Share