May 27, 2018

In Days of Old When Knights Were Bold….

What’s this? Is this actually an activity that is being allowed to take place? But…But…But…

Bye, bye stubborn belly fat ticky-wicky!

Don’t ticks have rights??? Crimea River!!!!

Share

Ticks Survive Anything, But…Global Warming

It’s like a bad disease!! This country is so completely brainwashed with a lie about “Climate Change” that it is impossible for them to escape from it. We blame global warming for everything. I wonder if any kid has blamed not passing in their homework because of global warming?

A Portland Press Herald article tells of recent studies on ticks that carry Lyme disease. This study has proven that ticks heartily survive even the harshest of Maine winters and yet it is still claimed that ticks and Lyme disease are being caused by global warming.

You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe.

I BELIEVE! I am a “TRUE BELIEVER!?

Share

Brainwashing and Fear of Government Causes Rabies Shots

We don’t really know who actually said, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,” but it doesn’t matter because the statement makes a lot of sense.

Fear instilled in the masses is a great tool to control those masses and along with it, we see an eagerness of those fearful people to give up their liberties in exchange for false security.

When you combine this indoctrination and propagandizing that has been undertaken with the American people, with another form of brainwashing resulting in animal perversion you have instances like the one in Maine where an obviously sick bobcat doing “weird things” and attacking people, and nobody wanted or dared to shoot the animal in order to remove the imminent danger as well as put the animal out of its misery.

The report claims that in the instance where one man got attacked, bit, and scratched, even though he had a gun in his possession, said, “Her husband, John, and their son went outside to confirm the cat was not a lynx, which is protected, and to keep an eye on the animal while John called the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to confirm that he could shoot it. Plowden said her husband had been armed but set the gun down to make the phone call.”

Now the son and father are undergoing rabies shots.

Share

Parasite Transmitted By Ticks Discovered In Canada Lynx

From the Granite Geek:

“Scientists found lungworm infection in 22 of 32 animals where the lung was examined. According to Stevens, it is unclear how much of an affect the presence of these parasites had on the health of the lynx. Many cases had minimal reaction associated with the infection so the parasites were likely incidental. However, other cases had more severe inflammation associated with the parasites, which may suggest some effect on the overall health of these individuals.

However, scientists also found inflammation in the heart and skeletal muscle of multiple Canada Lynx, and in two animals noted a microscopic protozoal organism suggestive of Hepatazoon sp. Additional diagnostic tests are being performed at the University of Georgia to definitively identify the protozoal species in these lynx. Protozoa are unicellular organisms, which occasionally lead to parasitic disease in different animal species.”

It appears that it is not known, or at least made public, enough information to know the full extent of the presence of this lungworm which is passed on by ticks…and what brand of ticks are involved.

However, I will guarantee one thing. We also read this: “To our knowledge, the parasite we believe this to be has not been diagnosed this far north as it tends to infect animals in the southern states and has not been diagnosed in Canada Lynx, although they are often diagnosed in Bobcats in southern states. This parasite is transmitted by tick vectors and to this point, the range of these tick vectors is not described to be in Maine so it is unclear if the tick range has expanded into Maine or if the Hepatazoon-like organism in these lynx is one not normally found in North America.”

The guarantee is that the root cause of this “previously unknown” parasite will be attributed to Climate Change. It’s what’s for lunch.

Share

Meta-Analysis, Coyotes, and Lyme Disease

Recently I had posted a link to a “study” conducted at Pepperdine University about the diet of Northeastern coyotes, compared to Western coyotes’ and a possible link to the spread and/or perpetuation of Lyme Disease in the Northeast.

On March 4, 2018, I wrote an article sharing, in part, the publisher of Maine Sportsman Magazine, Jon Lund’s, observation that the increased population of coyotes in Maine was causing an increase in Lyme Disease-carrying ticks which in turn was the cause of up-turns in the incidences of the disease. I wrote: “In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.”

According to the Meta-Analysis linked to, their conclusions do not support Lund’s theory. While I only have the Abstract of the study, I can only provide what is written there. But first, let me explain something in case readers don’t know what a meta-analysis is. A meta-analysis is “a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies.” (Source)

In this instance, scientists simple took data from 18 different studies about coyote diet and determined that while coyotes in the Northeast readily ate more deer, they proportionately did not eat more or less small predators (like the fox that Lund claims eat the rodents that carry the Lyme tick). The Abstract states: “Our results show that deer occur significantly more in the diet of Northeastern coyotes than in the diet of Midwestern coyotes, while small mammals occur significantly less. The occurrence of rabbits, hares, birds, vegetation, and fruit do not differ significantly by region. This supports the hypothesis that Northeastern coyotes, due to their larger size and hybridization with wolves, are better adapted at hunting large prey. Although Northeastern coyotes eat fewer small mammals than Midwestern coyotes, small mammals are still a common component of the Northeastern coyote diet. Thus the abundance of Northeastern coyotes is not likely to be positively correlated to the incidence of Lyme disease.”

It’s worth pointing out a few things. Again I’ll state that I don’t have access to the full study, however, there does seem to be some degree of contradiction but that contradiction may be insignificant.

Second, it appears from this information that because the Northeastern coyote eats far more deer, due mostly in size and cross-breeding with wolves, it may be due to a bigger appetite because the animal was bigger than the Western coyote. A conclusion on my part.

Third, this information clearly states that Northeastern coyotes eat fewer small mammals than their Western counterparts, but evidently not enough to make any sort of difference.

Fourth, this study concludes that it is “not likely” fewer small mammals consumed “positively correlated to the incidence of Lyme disease.”

It would appear that this analysis has only proven that Northeastern coyotes eat more deer than Western coyotes.

There is nothing conclusive, that I can see, that the presence of an increased population of coyotes has no effect on Lyme ticks.

Do any of the studies have data that go back to a time before the “Eastern coyote” became an invasive species? Have any of these studies taken place in long enough periods of time to take into account a changing coyote diet due to changing conditions on the ground? In other words, depending on conditions on the ground, a coyotes’ diet can have large fluctuations in amount and prey diet. Are these factored in? Will a changing diet also change the incidence of Lyme disease?

There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. Because of this meta-analysis, I wouldn’t be too quick to disregard Jon Lund’s hypothesis about the direct correlation between coyotes and Lyme disease.

What got along superbly before the invasive species arrived. I would surmise we could get along marvelously without them now.

 

Share

To Grow Moose Burn Down the Forest

In a small corner of northeast Minnesota is where you’ll find what is left of a moose herd. A Minnesota newspaper is saying that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) blames the reduction in moose on deer and as an aside note that “some” attribute some of the loss to wolf densities. But there’s an answer to the problem. Burn down the forest!

According to some researchers and biologists, brainworm and ticks are killing moose. (Note – this is of course due to global warming, wink-wink.) If you burn down the forest, the fire kills off the ticks and snails that host the brainworm parasite.

You don’t have to be a Ph.D. to know that moose thrive in forests that are regenerating. Maine has seen the moose population explode where millions of acres of forest were cleared because of an infestation of spruce budworm. Coincidentally, this same act created prime habitat for the snowshoe hare which is the Canada lynx’s favorite food and thus the lynx has made a remarkable resurgence…for now. What happens when the hare habitat is gone? Along with the explosion of the population of the moose, so too did the moose tick or winter tick which is now killing off the too large moose population.

So now there’s an answer for those of you interested in exploiting further the moose population. Think of the money outfitters can make with moose gawking tours. WOW! All we have to do is simply burn down the forests according to how many moose people want to see or hunt.

But at what expense to the rest of the ecosystem?

Share

Almost All Good News Out of Maine About Moose

According to the Portland Press Herald, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has made a proposal to increase the number of allotted moose hunting permits by 420, with all of that increase in the far northern part of the state – WMD 1-6.

MDIFW is still estimating the state’s moose population at between 50,000 and 70,000 (far too high) but we mustn’t forget that increasing moose permits to 2,500 is a far cry from the over 4,000 permits allotted by chance in 2013.

However, is there hope on our horizon? Is the MDIFW, and in particular the moose biologists, beginning to see things a bit differently? Maybe. Let’s review some of the comments found in this article.

In the order that they appear: First, “A 20 percent increase is very conservative,” said Judy Camuso, wildlife division director for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “We’re doing it in the core moose range in Maine where we have excellent survival among cow moose – around 90 percent.” Yes, 20% is very small but it is a step in the right direction. I wanted to point out to readers that the remainder of the quote is actually quite meaningless. In pointing out the need to raise moose permits “in core moose range,” Camuso says that is where they find “excellent survival among cow moose.”

Excellent survival means nothing if we don’t know how “survival” is defined in this context. Example: generally if a biologist speaks of calf survival rates, it’s most often based on a yearling calf surviving the winter – recruitment. To speak of cow survival does that mean one winter or for the average lifespan of a female moose? It is important to know.

Second, we read, “Camuso said state biologists are already talking about increasing permits in 2019 dramatically in at least one hunting district where there has been higher calf mortality because of winter tick infestation. Such an increase would be used as a test to see whether culling the moose population in areas with a higher incidence of winter ticks can lead to a healthier herd.” (Emphasis added)

Now that you’ve picked yourself up off the floor, read further: “Winter ticks play a big part in calf survival,” Camuso said. “In the (more southerly) areas of moose range calf mortality is high. Higher densities of a host species usually perpetuates the parasite. And climate is absolutely a part of the equation.” (Emphasis added)

I have to disagree somewhere here. Upon a considerable amount of research on the winter ticks, it would be dishonest to state that climate is “absolutely” a part of winter tick survival. Maine’s climate is not absolutely an influencing factor for winter ticks. Weather phenomenon may play a limited roll in tick survival but it is certain that availability of a host blood meal (moose) is of ABSOLUTE importance.

Third, With any wildlife population, when there are too many animals on the landscape it’s not a good thing,” Camuso said. “Based on the public feedback from polling, people in Maine support a healthy population, even if that means fewer moose.” (Emphasis added)

It is refreshing to actually hear wildlife biologists expressing to the mainstream press that “too many animals…is not a good thing.” If true, it is equally refreshing to learn that people in Maine support fewer moose, if it means healthier moose. Do they really mean that? Do they understand what they are saying?

It is seldom, like almost never, that any wildlife biologist would even suggest that there are limits to the number of pounds of apples you can put in a 5-pound sack. If this proposed test is to take place in a WMD that has a lot of moose – reducing the population to moose to see if it mitigates the tick infestation – showed it to be true in controlling ticks, this would surely upset the global warming applecart. It is for that reason I see little hope that such a test would amount to much of anything, but I guess one can only hope. The myth of global warming is so deeply entrenched in everyone’s way of thinking, it is hopeless to think any of this will change.

However, this news comes as good news – more moose permits to lower population numbers in some areas, and a test area to see if reducing moose numbers reduces tick numbers. I hope MDIFW doesn’t keep the results a secret.

Share

A Call for a Possible Bounty on Coyotes Because of Disease Spread

Jon Lund is the owner and publisher of the Maine Sportsman magazine. In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.

Maine got along just fine before the coyote took over the countryside and contrary to the many statements made otherwise, we don’t need them.

However, there is something else I’d like to touch base with readers about that Mr. Lund brings up in his article. This has to do with the use of chemicals and/or “natural” elements to ward off ticks and insect bites.

I’m sure that the pharmaceutical industry, and anyone else who stands to make a profit from their drugs to treat Lyme and other diseases, has thoroughly hyped the presence of ticks and instilled ample fear into the masses. After all, when the people live in fear they will do most anything.

Lund speaks specifically about permethrin. Permethrin is a common ingredient found in compounds marketed as insect repellents or killers. Basically, it attacks the central nervous system of insects.

Permethrin is a synthetic, or man-made, product derived from pyrethrin.

Most fact sheets available to the consumer paint the picture of permethrin/pyrethrin as mostly harmless even though long-term effects have not been studied. Some believe that using products that contain permethrin presents a higher risk of health issues than the odds of getting bit by a tick that will infect you with Lyme or other diseases. This is something you will have to decide for yourself. But to make that decision honestly, you should make the effort to understand the presented “remedies” and “threats.” It’s your health. Know what you are doing.

Lund takes the time to explain how ticks are spread around (I don’t find any factual claims that global warming is the culprit) and refers to a study where “…a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks.”

The same study tells us that the incidence and presence of Lyme disease are not related to the abundance of deer but to the absence of key small predators. “We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.”

This claim is in direct contradiction to the theory that predators kill only the sick of the prey species and justifies the “need” for predators to keep our ecosystems healthy. Not only is there no evidence that the presence of large predators reduces the presence of disease in ecosystems, this study seems to prove the exact opposite.

We forget or never learned history. Large predators like wolves and coyotes were not tolerated on the landscape by early settlers. And there were reasons for that, some of which include not only the destruction of property caused by these critters but it was known that they carried and spread diseases, many of which are harmful and even deadly to humans.

And yet, today, there is an all-out effort to protect these same predators. It appears that for some anyway, the demand for an abundance of coyotes at the expense of public health is just fine and dandy. I don’t see it that way at all and I’m not alone.

As the trend continues in the direction that it is headed, it should be fairly easy to predict there will be increased fall-out about protecting any animal that spreads dangerous diseases among the people. Few tolerate the presence of rats knowing and remembering the unbelievable death and destruction caused by the bubonic plague. Is there a difference in protecting the health and safety of the public because one culprit is a nasty rat and the other is a nasty wild dog?

Mr. Lund is correct in asking the question about the role of coyotes in Maine, or anywhere else, where, according to provided data, the coyote is directly affecting the growth, perpetuation and spread of Lyme disease.

If Maine cannot effectively control the population of coyotes for public health and safety with the current management strategies, then it may be time to look at something more effective.

It is dishonest by the many who blame hunting and trapping for the decimation and/or extirpation of wolves and coyotes but go out of their way to deny that hunting and trapping of the same animals today have any effect on reducing their population numbers.

Many decades ago when it was decided by governments that wolves and coyotes were destroying property and spreading diseases, one of the elements employed to rid the landscape of the nasty canines and the diseases they spread was a bounty system. Any bounty must be attractive enough to draw enough to the plan. What is the limit in the cost of healthcare?

Such a suggestion will be vehemently opposed by many, especially those who hate hunting and trapping. They are wrong that think people like Jon Lund and myself might promote a bounty system for coyotes only for improving deer hunting. Little do these people know and understand the real conservation of wildlife.

In the normal world which is being left in the dust, there would be no question as to what is the right thing to do. Normalcy tells us public health and safety take precedence over animals and the spread of disease. One has to wonder what the extent of the bubonic plague would have been like if people had known and took real action to get rid of the rats that spread the disease.

But, we live in a Post-Normal world now where many things are upside-down. Are we to wait until more and more people get sick and die before we begin to act? Are we serious about finding a cure to a problem or is there just too much money to be made along with the genocide many promote?

It appears so.

Share

Moose Ticks: When Evidentiary Truth Is Pounding In Your Face

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me continue with the statements found in the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But still, let’s focus on global warming!

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

Perhaps Massachusettes has outlawed global warming?

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

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

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

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

Share

Maine Deer/Car Crashes: Trying To Make Sense of What Was Said

Sometimes what someone says about something doesn’t make a lick of sense. Such was the case when I read a report about cars crashing into deer in Aroostook County, Maine.

Let’s see if we can make any sense at all over this.

The report begins by saying that “vehicle crashes with deer have quadrupled in Aroostook County in the last five years” because deer populations have grown. Seriously? I wonder how many hunters would agree that deer numbers in Aroostook County have grown so much that it has caused a quadrupling of accidents? (If we ever get the 2017 deer harvest data from MDIFW, I wonder if it will show an increase in deer harvest in Aroostook County?)

Then we are told that last year a “feeding operation” (no details about it) caused 100 crashes with logging trucks, but has since been moved (to where?) and “no longer poses a road hazard.”

A regional biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) says, “We’re doing everything we can to keep deer away from the roads. Deer numbers have swelled and more often spend their winters in towns where there are roads and cars.”

Huh? I want to know, other than educating people about the potential problems of feeding deer (accidents), what “everything” is that is being done to keep deer out of the roads. Is that kind of like doing everything to make sure bears and coyotes don’t destroy the deer herd? Perhaps global warming can resolve this problem(?) too.

I just don’t plain get it when the biologist says that deer are now spending time living in towns where there are roads and cars. I can only guess what this means but this statement appears to be contrary to the talking points always spoken by MDIFW officials that deer winter in their idealistic deer yards, which have all been destroyed, or they die. Is MDIFW now suggesting that deer adapt and due to reduced habitat and the overwhelming presence of large predators, they have moved into town where the odds of getting run over by a logging truck are less than being eaten alive by coyotes, bobcats, and lynx?

However, the same biologist attributes the growing deer population to (you have to get ready for this) “reduced coyote predation, supplemental feeding and relatively mild winters.” MDIFW evidently believes their coyote program in Aroostook County accounts for part of the increase in deer but state that there hasn’t been a severe winter in Aroostook County in 10 years. It must be like all good environmentalists would do, MDIFW changed the criteria as to what constitutes a severe winter. Perhaps it’s just the thought that global warming exists, therefore, there is no longer any such thing as a severe winter.

Maybe MDIFW knows from their ongoing deer study, which is a huge secret, it appears, that there are more deer in the North Country than they thought. But, we’ll never know that because they never share that information with anyone…unless it makes them look good.

But isn’t this report and all comments geared to address but one thing? – feeding deer. MDIFW does not like it when people feed deer. They never have and probably never will until they can find a way to tax it or somehow make money from it. Never finding anything good to say about people feeding deer, MDIFW goes out of their way to even make up reasons why people shouldn’t do it.

The news report found someone who obviously doesn’t approve of deer feeding and someone who coincidentally had a crash with a deer recently, to share his “expertise” about deer feeding programs. This person describes deer, because of being fed, “they were so fat they couldn’t get over the guard rails.” 

This same “expert,” who claims there are “[a]bsolutely, there are more deer this year,” is contrasted by what the Washburn Police Chief said, “It’s not clear if there are more or less deer-related crashes this year than in others.” Well, don’t ruin a good story injecting facts into it. Fat deer that can’t get out of their own way are dropping like flies.

In more efforts to demonize deer feeding, the regional wildlife biologist says, “In some places, the deer have over-browsed their natural winter foods such as hardwood trees.” He also says there’s nothing left to eat. Not to be just contradictory, but, if this is true doesn’t this mean three things? One, that if there wasn’t supplemental feeding, deer will starve to death. Two, deer must have grown so much in numbers they have exceeded carrying capacity, and three, deer are eating their “natural food” despite feeding programs. If this is the case then why hasn’t MDIFW begun issuing “Any-Deer Permits” to reduce the size of the deer herd. We are told that the population has been “swelling” for at least five years (and it must be longer because Northern Maine hasn’t had a severe winter in 10 years and we know that, when convenient, severe winters are the biggest killers of deer.) So what’s taking so long to get those Any-Deer Permits passed out? Surely it would be much better for everyone if the deer were legally harvested by hunters, and for food to hungry people, than to simply let them starve to death while MDIFW continues to promote the stoppage of supplemental feeding.

Or isn’t this just about injecting some more emotional clap-trap into the media to discourage them to stop feeding deer?

But most bizarre of all in this article involves the comment apparently intended to address disease…or something.

To be forthcoming, there is a threat to the spread of disease, when any disease is present and when there are large concentrations of deer. MDIFW has always stated deer feeding programs as being potentially problematic in the spread of some diseases.

However, I have tried to get my wee small brain wrapped around the very last statement at the end of the article.

“Eventually, those deer are going to share diseases, ticks, everything else. The gene pools are going to get shallower. They’re not going to be able to get their own food.”

I could spend hours guessing what any of this might mean. “Eventually” we have no idea what is going to take place. If you believe the lies about Climate Change, then you might also believe that there might be more deer in the north and fewer moose, Canada lynx, etc. Historically speaking, there has never been an overwhelming number of deer in the North Woods of Maine. Experts love to be like echo chambers and when it’s convenient, tell us how northern Maine is at the northern fringe of the whitetail deer’s range. They also like to tell us, when it’s convenient, that severe winters keep the population down. If it’s convenient, as appears in this case here, the population has “swelled” and it’s because people are feeding deer AND the winters are mild – convenient truths.

So what’s to believe?

I’m completely at sea about the comment about gene pools. I’ve done a fair amount of writing and research about gene pools in deer and I haven’t run across the term that a gene pool will get “shallower.”

Maybe we’re all gonna die!!

I’m not sure, but I’m guessing the “expert” knows nothing about gene pools but it makes for good copy, as I have seen many places before.

MDIFW hates it when people feed deer. I understand their position and their reasons given. I can’t say that I agree completely with their reasoning about it. I think it has become exceedingly clear the MDIFW and the State of Maine would have a difficult time trying to stop it. The upside to deer feeding is the sense of ownership that many people take concerning their local deer herds. A lot can be said about that.

Has anyone done a study to determine how much supplemental feeding is taking place and how many deer that involves? This might tell us what percentage of the overall population of deer is being affected and whether or not any of this hubbub is worth being that concerned about. Just asking.

I recall many years ago emailing with Maine’s head deer biologist about feeding programs. I don’t have the exact quote but essentially he said (at that time) the number of deer affected by feeding was so small percentage-wise, that it wasn’t worth making a fuss over. What, if anything, has changed since then?

It sounds like, from what I read in this article, that efforts are underway to move deer feeding locations away from highways or to places that don’t cause deer to have to cross busy highways to get to them. This is positive.

Maine is fortunate that is doesn’t have diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease to deal with. If and when that time comes, deer feeding stations will have to either become illegal or designed in such a way as to limit the threat of diseases spreading. However, in those states that do have CWD, efforts to ban feeding has shown little change in the presence or spread of the disease.

I guess I’ll leave the “shallower gene pools” for another discussion.

Share