July 22, 2019

Are Tick Bite Reactions Associated With Our Chemical Ingestion?

A reader shared with me the other day an article that, evidently, was published in Peterson’s Hunting. What I received was a scan of the magazine article, so I can’t really share that with you. No matter, you can get information on the Lone Star tick from the CDC. Just scroll down a bit from the landing page until you find information about the Lone Star tick.

The issue that appears to be associated with a bite from a Lone Star tick is that some people (emphasis so far might be on “some”), after being bitten develop an allergic reaction to eating red meat. Hmmm. Maybe it’s a conspiracy formulated by vegetarians. But, why would they put their own food supply in jeopardy by forcing more people to have to give up eating red meat? (Just kidding)

It seems that as time goes along, more and more people are “contracting” diseases from ticks. We can make up all kinds of excuses and develop many theories about why but has anyone actually considered the fact that perhaps little has changed as far as the ticks go and a whole lot has changed as far as the chemical make-up of the human being is concerned?

Humans willingly and unawarely ingest gobs of chemicals into their bodies every day. Whether the consumption of these chemicals is temporary (until it passes through your system) or accumulative, logic might dictate that perhaps the same venom from the same ticks is the same as it always has been, plus whatever chemicals the ticks have been forced to take into their systems. With the human body fully loaded up with cocktails of various and sundry drugs/chemicals, and of course, the ticks may be injecting chemicals into our bodies as well, and the outcome is a chemical reaction that results in the next name for a human disease contracted from a tick/insect bite.

Are we to believe that all these newly discovered diseases and reactions from tick/insect bites have always been around and that due to better diagnostic techniques and technology, they are now being discovered? I don’t happen to buy into the explanation as the sole reason, no more than I blame everything on Climate Change.

It may be years and years before any of this can be explained. When a human – and I suppose an insect – ingest a chemical, the chances are pretty good that that chemical may undergo some kind of change. The chemical may or may not remain in its original state or chemical make-up. With several changes and/or concoctions of drugs/chemicals being interchanged and interacted between human and insect bodies, it only makes sense to me that chemical reactions occur. We like to call them “allergic reactions.”

Whatever we call them, the fact remains that some people, according to their own biological and chemical composition, may or may not react to certain insect bites.

While we can control some of what we ingest for chemicals, i.e. 37 flavors of drugs our doctors, while “practicing” medicine (giving us chemicals to see what happens), prescribe, and eating better foods, it’s impossible to rid our systems of all of them because these “pollutants” saturate our air and the government regularly practices filling our atmosphere with chemicals in the name of “seeding” clouds to “control” the weather.

The bottom line is that we should expect to hear of more ticks/insects supposedly carrying more and other and undiscovered “diseases” all due to uncontrolled and excessive ingestion of chemicals…all for our health, mind you.

Just thinking logically! Scary isn’t it?

Share

Maine: New Law One Step Closer to All-Out Ban on Wildlife Feeding

LD 1818, a bill that is supported (and written by) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), gives authority to the commissioner of MDIFW to limit and/or stop the feeding of deer, bear, moose, and wild turkey, if the commissioner “has reason to believe that the type or location of feed may create a public safety hazard or may have a detrimental effect on deer, bear, moose and wild turkey…”

Hiding behind the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease, LD 1818, goes too far, in my opinion, in granting authority to the commissioner to exercise personal judgement based on their own perspective (a weighted measure) to limit or stop wildlife feeding. LD 1818 was presented as an emergency measure. Unfortunately, the idea of giving the commissioner authority to stop feeding wildlife outside of the presence of Chronic Wasting Disease, does not meet any standards of necessary emergency ruling. This one got away from the legislators…or did it?

It is no secret that the MDIFW has fought against the feeding of wildlife, particularly deer. This newly enacted bill now gives authority to the commissioner to do just that based on the commissioner’s perspective of what constitutes a “public safety hazard.”

Playing around with laws and authority in hopes of preventing or limiting the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease is one thing, but giving a commissioner pretty much Carte Blanche authority to make such determinations exceeds the boundaries of democratic checks and balances as well as a call for “emergency” establishment of law.

Commissioners come and commissioners go and with each successive commissioner, they bring with them political agendas and ideology that may be out of step with the wishes of the majority.

Share

Combined “Brilliance” at North American Moose Conference

It is most difficult to get reliable and accurate information from just about ANY media source. Here is but one example.

I did not attend this conference on moose. All that I have had a chance to read about it I found in this Bangor Daily News article. As readers, we must understand that information contained in this article is from the perspective of the author…period. If the author is a Climate Change zealot, naturally the article will only provide support for their religious beliefs, perhaps overlooking contrary data or information provided. It matters not the complete outcome of the conference and all thoughts and determinations, the readers are subjected to personal perspectives of the author regardless of the writer’s intentions.

Having said this, this remains an attempt at sharing some thoughts and my own perspective on what I know about the North American Moose Conference, combined with years of knowledge and research about moose and in particular moose ticks and large predator mortality.

According to the article in question, Maine appears to be the only state (region) where the winter tick is killing off the moose herd. (Makes one wonder if that is true and Climate Change is the cause, aren’t these other areas being subjected to the same Climate Change?) I will make a note right now that compared to the other regions where biologists in attendance at the conference said ticks aren’t the problem, Maine has gobs more moose than any of the other regions. Is there a correlation? And why does Maine have gobs more moose? Does the spruce budworm after effects have anything to do with it? Does growing an artificially high number of moose related?

Keeping in line with the unreliability of good and accurate news information, we also read that in Minnesota, one attendee said, “We had a very high neo-nate mortality. And two-thirds of that was wolf predation.”

I will most certainly guarantee that if you were to contact the Minnesota authorities about wolf predation and moose survival, the “official” line would state nothing about wolves killing off the moose herd. Regardless of long-time historical accounts from Minnesota that wolves have always had devastating effects on moose herds, officials there will tell you the problem is…you guessed it – Climate Change. Who let this person out?

The article in question states that the problems with moose herd management throughout North America varies from ticks, to predation by wolves, to disease, to unregulated hunting, etc. but it just seems an irresistible result of brainwashing that Climate Change is the problem. I can’t help but wonder how much good scientific study has been destroyed or wasted due to catechized indoctrination of the false impacts of a man-created religion (politics) of global warming – now generically referred to as Climate Change?

Perhaps there is some hope. It has taken many years for Maine, with a few years of moose study under their belt, to admit that winter ticks might be destroying the moose herd. There has also been some hints that perhaps an artificially inflated herd is responsible for an intensification of the the winter tick.

I have stated in the past that if scientists want to blame the problems of moose management on the winter tick, maybe it’s time to do some studying of the winter tick. There is danger in that these days, as there is danger in any, so-called, scientific research. Scientism rules and most “scientific” research is nothing but useless garbage that mostly better represents a good dose of propaganda – outcome based research – it’s where the money is.

However, there are signs that there needs to be better studies (not influenced by the false demons of Climate Change) about the tick.

In a separate article, also found in the Bangor Daily News, about how this winter tick “quests” and finds a winter home on board a warm, blood-filled moose, we read some comments from attendees at this conference about that winter tick that remains mostly misunderstood and wrongly said to thrive on “Climate Change.” (Whatever conveniently fits the narrative of the day.)

They got it right about how ticks climb vegetation in the Fall and lie in wait for a moose to walk by at such time they jump on the moose for a long winter’s ride participating in the blood letting…if you will.

They also get it partly right when they state that “early snow” will “…knocks that vegetation down and knocks the ticks down on the ground.”

This is a bit misleading though. At the time that the winter tick is questing (late Summer or early Fall – around the same time that the moose is rutting which adds to the enhanced possibility of getting ticks due to increased travel) what are the chances of “early snow?” And what are the chances that this “early snow” is substantial enough to “knocks that vegetation down and knocks the ticks down on the ground?”

Just about never. In regions throughout Maine, rutting and questing happen most often long before “early snow.”

While it may be fun to talk about and wish for “early snow,” none of us have any control over that weather and leaving it to chance (Mother Nature) wishing and wanting will do absolutely nothing to responsibly manage a moose herd.

Also mentioned as a deterrent to the tick population is drought. Once again, this may be an accurate claim, but perhaps the chances of a drought in the Fall being an effective killer of ticks are about as good as “early snow.”

Most often discussed in tick gabbing circles is the need for a lot of snow and cold to “kill the ticks.” This is really what I’ve come to call Romance Biology or Voodoo Science (coined by former USFWS biologist Jim Beers). For winters to be cold enough, long enough you have to approach the Arctic Circle. That’s why ticks aren’t a problem on Alaska moose.

As a side note, a biologist from Alaska made this statement: “Winter ticks aren’t a problem there. They don’t exist.”

Not to lose the point of his perspective of winter ticks in Alaska, but it is not totally accurate to say winter ticks “don’t exist” there. They may exist but negligibly. And the reason they might exist is because irresponsible researchers took winter ticks into that region just to see if they would survive. They did and that’s how you have “some” ticks in that region.

If one spends all their time focusing on how “early snow” and “drought” can have an effect on moose, sensible things are overlooked in exchange for blaming the lack of “early snow” or lack of a drought on Climate Change – a hopeless and irresponsible excuse for doing nothing. You can’t get rid of the winter tick. They are a viable species that can survive in extreme heat and drought as well as moisture and extreme cold temperatures. And we have no control over that. We do have control over the number of moose (food supply) we manage.

What studies that do exist on the winter tick, can tell us that a better deterrent in tick questing is wind. Ticks can’t hang on to vegetation forever and strong winds, which odds are probably better to have than early snow or drought, knock the ticks off vegetation forcing them to begin their quest back up the plants. Persistent winds could be quite effective. Maybe someone needs to make a claim that winds, or lack thereof, is a product of Climate Change.

Completely missing from this one news article is any discussion about reducing the moose population in order to reduce the tick population. Among sensible biologists (mostly those not overwhelmed by Climate Change) the ONLY way to mitigate winter ticks is to mitigate the number of moose….period.

Most of us don’t really know all that was discussed at this moose conference. All we have here is a little bit of information about Maine’s problem in dealing with winter ticks and the toll it is taking on the state’s moose herd.

Perhaps someday, if the Scientismists don’t completely win out, somebody will figure this all out. We could do as some suggest and let Nature do the job of management but I assure all readers, that’s not the ugly, rotten mess we really want to be subjected too.

Seriously, it’s time to can the false claims associated with the politics and religion of global warming and get down to some real, honest scientific research of value.

In case you might not have figured it out yet, I’m not holding my breath waiting.

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

More Moose Permits Fewer Moose Ticks – Connection?

It’s difficult most of the time to separate what a person says or doesn’t say in a Media report from what the author is either required to say or is brainwashed enough they don’t know the difference. I think we are seeing some of this in an article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald about Maine’s intention to increase the number of moose permits they will have available for profit.

Lee Kantar is the head moose biologist at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). When the MDIFW began their mostly secretive moose study, I held out little hope that much good would come out of it due to the extent to which brainwashing by Environmentalism has infiltrated the fish and wildlife community and every level of existence.

None of that has changed, however, there has been glimmers of hope in scattered reports from the MDIFW. It appears that Mr. Kantar might even have come to understand that there is a correlation between the number of moose and the number of winter ticks that are a cause of mortality in the great beast community. Perhaps (I may be giving him the doubt on this one) he even has a better understanding of the life cycle of the winter tick…(I’ll leave that one with a question mark at the end)?…? (make it two)

Kantar says: “This year, there was lower reproduction in moose in some parts of the state. Winter tick does not kill cows, it kills calves. But winter tick does put enough pressure on cows that are carrying a fetus, and not all the calves survive.”

An admission that ticks are one cause of moose mortality. This is the first (that I have seen or read) of MDIFW admitting or better, explaining, how anything that negatively effects the reproduction cycle of the moose will negatively effect the sustainability of the herd. It isn’t just the blood sucking that causes the moose to drop dead from exposure or starvation.

Many parts of Maine have seen tons of snow on the ground this winter. This kind of snowfall also has a negative effect on moose and deer. This is where Kantar suggests he has a better understanding of the ticks than before: “The fall conditions drive the winter tick,” Kantar said. “Our expectation is that the tick count will be down, and that should translate into increased calf survival.”

It is during the Fall that ticks are “questing” – in search of a host body to hang out on during the long winter months. When conditions on the ground seriously disrupt this questing process, ticks die by the millions and thus the overall negative effects of the winter tick on moose are mitigated…at least in the short term. This is why Mr. Kantar is suggesting a good moose calf survival and a need to make adjustments to the herd growth and population.

However, the reporter just can’t leave the “Climate Change” myth out of her reporting: “But biologists hope that the incidence of winter tick is lower because snow came early last fall and the parasite thrives in warmer climates and conditions.”

My wish is that one day, just one reporter would do some homework about the tick and stop perpetuating the Echo Chamber of Climate Change. The winter tick does not thrive in warmer climates and conditions. If that were true, the winter tick would be “thriving” to our south where the climate is always warmer and the conditions the way in which ignorant climate change alarmist present it.

The echo chambers continue to falsely report that because Maine has warmer winters the tick is thriving, when, in fact, this has nothing to do with the growth and sustainability of the winter tick. Science has shown that it would take conditions found in the Arctic to actually kill the tick. Two things drive the survival of the tick and Kantar mentioned one of them.

One is the questing process. As I have already mentioned, when the process of climbing vegetation and waiting for a moose to walk by so they can hitch a ride is seriously effected, fewer ticks will complete their life cycles and will die.

The second condition goes hand in hand with the first – ticks being able to find a host ride. It is important and necessary for the tick to find a host. If conditions are favorable to find a host, but there are fewer hosts to latch onto, tick production is mitigated. I believe Mr. Kantar is attempting to learn the balance between how many moose results in a healthy, relative tick-free existence while making adjustments in line with conditions.

What appears to me as encouraging here is that Kantar’s adjustments in the issuing of moose permits is as close to real time adjustments as you can get. Often reactions by biologists are years too late, making it difficult to understand whether any actions were good or effective.

Here we have a case where the biologist appears to understand that probably the tick questing period was interrupted by early fall snow which should result in an increased survival rate of moose calves – depending on how destructive the winter has been in general. This kind of real time management, so long as that management is based on sound science and not Climate Change mythology, should be a terrific boost for the moose herd and these actions should provide us all with a healthier population of moose to enjoy.

Keep up the good work. Let’s hope it continues.

Share

CWD Ain’t What It’s Claimed to Be?

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a man-made disease that is believed to have purposely originated in a lab in Colorado. Since its “discovery” it has been promoted as being a “prion” disease. In other words, a misshaped protein that, as a result, causes a deterioration of the brain and the destruction of the central nervous system always ending in death for deer, elk, and moose.

But some specialist “scientists” are saying this theory goes against basic biology – that proteins cannot replicate and cause the spread of the disease; that it is but a symptom. Does this mean it may be possible to find a cure?<<<Read More>>>

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

Disease: For the Love of Predators?

Here we go with one more “study” that “suggests” that a reduction in the presence of foxes and perhaps other smaller predators who feast on mice is causing an increase in those rodents/mice that carry and spread diseases such as Lyme Disease.

For at least 6 years there have been ample studies suggesting the same thing. However, one of the problems associated with these so-called “studies” is that in one form or another all causes not desired by the individual or group of individuals seeking desired results, are blamed on “Climate Change,” i.e. Global Warming.

When reading the latest report about predators and the spread of disease, I recalled that I had read not that long ago about Joh Lund, publisher of the Maine Sportsman Magazine stating that he tended to agree that a reduction in the number of foxes could be the root cause of an increase in Lyme and other diseases carried and spread by small rodents like the white-footed mouse that carries Lyme. Lund’s hypothesis is that the reduction of foxes is caused by direct competition from coyotes. With Maine and other states experiencing ample growth in the number of coyotes, wolves, and coywolves, the result is a sharp reduction in foxes and other smaller prey responsible for keeping in check the rodents that carry disease.

Perhaps we can just as easily blame the increased spread of diseases, such as Lyme disease, on a misguided approach to wildlife management. So long as wildlife managers insist that the crux of their decision making will be based upon social demands, i.e. the protection of large predators, then we cannot expect any changes that might result in the reduction of disease-carrying rodents.

To go along with this misguided approach to wildlife management, there are ample groups and individuals with pet projects aimed at protecting one species of animal over the other with all the fabricated excuses for doing so. The larger and wealthier the animal protection group is the more pressure they can put on wildlife managers who insist on making their decisions based on social demands. 

Most state wildlife managing departments openly invite this kind of pressure to be brought on themselves by publicly announcing that they will cave into social demands regardless of any scientific knowledge.

At work, we have those who believe that killing off large numbers of deer will reduce the presence and spread of Lyme Disease. We also have those who love coyotes, wolves, coywolves, and all other breeds and mixed breeds of wild dogs who refuse to allow any managers to necessarily go about killing those animals in order to find some kind of balance that should be desired for a healthy ecosystem and thus creating an atmosphere where people are less likely to get sick.

Perhaps lost in all this modern-day Voodoo Science and Romance Biology is the fact that animals are nasty and spread diseases. I don’t personally believe that this creation was intended to live in our homes or that we should be demanding that disease-spreading animals of any kind should be protected. This misguided hogwash about Nature’s Balance is causing all kinds of problems, the majority of which are not being talked about and people refuse to listen. It’s easier to blame all problems on Climate Change than to address these issues responsibly.

If wildlife biologists and managers, who aren’t completely brainwashed into this modern wildlife management hocus-pocus, were allowed to manage wildlife from a real scientific perspective and an understanding that many of these animals are a resource intended for the people, and void of perverted social demands, perhaps then and only then will be able to do a better job. Until that happens – and I’m not holding my breath, – we can expect more disease problems and safety threats to the people who want to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness. 

Share

Still Pushing “Climate Change” As Effecting Winter Ticks. Changing Propaganda?

It is incredibly insane listening to and reading the idiots who insist on spreading the lie that Climate Change is the cause for an increased presence of winter ticks which consequently are killing moose by sucking them dry of blood.

For years now, brain-dead scientismists have beat their propaganda drums that due to “lack of cold winters and ample snow” winter ticks are thriving and killing moose. Their premise has been that northern states, like Maine, because of warmer winters was not killing the ticks. Ignorance and the need to promote a false, non-existence of “Climate Change” (in the context that it is being promoted) failed to understand the complete life cycle of the tick and to what severity of cold, snow, and the right conditions needed to actually limit the number of ticks.

But that hasn’t stopped them from their money-making promotions of “Climate Change.”

From news out of Canada, a report falsely claims that global warming is the cause of moose mortality in Maine and other Northeast States as well as Canada. However, this time around, perhaps motivated by the fact that nobody is buying the B.S. that the lack of “normal” cold winters and snow are causing the ticks to thrive (people are looking out their windows and seeing 3-feet of snow and below zero temperatures in mid-November), they’ve decided to change their propaganda (lies) to approach the manipulation from a slightly different use of words (such as changing global warming to climate change): “…that tick is a parasite that’s given more time to find a host. Moose are just exposed to this potential parasite load for a longer period of time.” (emboldening added) There is never any consideration that the simple fact that too many moose perpetuate the growth and distribution of the winter tick.

Because, evidently, the lack of cold and snow (which isn’t happening on a regular basis) isn’t working out to substantiate their false claims of global warming they now are promoting that due to a warming climate ticks have a longer period of time to find a host moose to ride on for the winter and such them clean of blood.

What’s amazing is these clowns spend all of their “research” time (wink-wink) trying to figure out what’s happening to the moose because of the tick (by using someone else’s data) and nobody is interested in studying the actual tick. The only information being used about the tick is nonsense spread from one half-baked scientismist to another and repeated en masse and eagerly by an irresponsible, enabling, and lazy Media.

Evidently the authors of this propaganda piece didn’t bother to ask those in Maine conducting moose studies, or they didn’t want to because it might upset their agendas, otherwise, they would have found that Maine’s biologists are suggesting that the seemingly unprecedented spread of winter ticks is caused simply by the presence of too many moose.

But, there is no money in finding solutions and there is far more money in perpetuating “Climate Change.”

What’s most sad is the fact that truth and reality are being suppressed due to the perpetuation of the false myths about global warming.

Share

UMaine is Going to Test for Infections in Ticks

What a great idea! According to V. Paul Reynolds, the University of Maine is going to test ticks to determine how many or what percentage of ticks carry infections and what kind they carry. From the article linked to, it appears researchers want to focus on Lyme disease, babesiosis, and anaplasmosis, all diseases that are extremely dangerous to people.

This is all good and never should any of us downplay the importance of understanding ticks and the spread of disease. However, consider what I am about to write.

Hydatid disease in humans comes from the ingestion of Echinococcus granulosus eggs. These tiny eggs are carried in wild and domestic dogs, foxes, and raccoons (definitive hosts) and spread through their feces and ingested by secondary hosts – deer, moose, cows, sheep – ungulates – which causes the growth of cysts in organs such as liver, lungs, brain, heart. Most common are the lungs and liver.

Maine scientists and researchers have determined that moose in Maine are infected with cystic echinococcosis (they like to call it lungworm), most likely contracted from wolves/coyotes that populate the state of Maine in the tens of thousands.

But, we are talking about ticks, right? Correct! Hang on!

There are many kinds of ticks that carry diseases, some of which are talked about in V. Paul Reynolds’ piece. But there is no talk of this very dangerous, even deadly disease that can infect and affect man. I have written extensively about how men can become infected by the inadvertent ingestion of the E. granulosus eggs, i.e. through infected water, foods, feces (disturbing wolf/coyote scat) and from your pet dog that roams about freely and is not adequately treated by your local veterinarian.

Few in the U.S. know anything about and have never heard of such a disease. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) recently had stated that worldwide Hydatid disease among people was at epidemic levels. Today, WHO says that at any one time, more than 1 million people are affected.

WHO also states that: “Humans are infected through ingestion of parasite eggs in contaminated food, water or soil, or through direct contact with animal hosts.”

But, Tom. We are talking about ticks and the spread of diseases. That’s right.

Ticks cannot be carriers of the E. granulosus egg…through their own ingestion and pass it on through their feces or blood…that we know of. But there is a remarkable phenomenon that shouldn’t be disregarded.

Research has discovered that insects that are commonly found on scat can carry the microscopic eggs on them and transplant those eggs on the next warm body or object they land on, i.e. you, me, a bird, a cow, a deer, a moose, a picnic table, plants, flowers, etc. Should that egg(s) be inadvertently ingested by you or I or any of the listed unsuspecting culprits and hundreds, perhaps thousands of other contacts you can come up with, there is no limit in how this disease can be spread. The odds are low, perhaps, but realistic none the same. This is something that we should be educated about.

Our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells us that these eggs can remain viable for up to one year. Extreme heat and cold has little effect. Fire will destroy them.

So imagine if you can, any of the several tick varieties that inhabit our areas, crawling on or near an infected coyote scat before working their way up a stem of grass or a bush. You are out for a walk later discovering that same tick on you. The way we have been brainwashed and fear instilled in us about Lyme disease, in our semi-panic stage to get the tick off us, we grab the tick, trying to squeeze it and kill it, or simply to touch it to save for the doctor or burn in a fire, we forget to wash our hands thoroughly or before we do, we put our hands on or near our mouth or nose. The next thing you know, this possible Lyme disease-carrying tick also has a few viable E.g eggs that got on you and you ingest it.

Frightening prospects to say the least.

Also, consider the possibilities of those ticks that find deer and moose as a source of a blood meal. It’s not that the tick will necessarily infect the deer or moose, or any other ungulate it might land on by spreading it through the blood, but the ungulate, even it doesn’t groom well, may ingest the eggs from a tick carrying an E.g. egg.

We know that ungulates that grow the cysts will not often die directly from the disease but surely lungs infected with cysts inhibits that animal’s ability to avoid large predators. This, in turn, increases the mortality rate which could present significant problems with managing wild ungulate herds and sustaining a viable population. This act aides in the spread of disease.

With all the many ways that E.g can spread, it is time that all of us become educated to the prospects of how these diseases are spread and how other animals and ourselves can become infected.

There are other diseases from ticks than Lyme disease.

Get educated. You may want to begin by going to this page and begin reading.

Share