February 1, 2023

No Predator Control Leads to Increased Problems With Human Interaction

The insane Leftists who want large predators living in everyone’s backyard…except their own of course…continue to repeat the nonsense that in places where bear hunting and trapping, or bear baiting have been eliminated, the bear populations have remained steady, or dropped, and there have been no increase in bear/human encounters. How then does the Left explain the following story?

Officials with the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CDEEP) say that bears in the Constitution State number about 700 and are growing at a rate of about 10% per year. In addition, problem complaints from residents are rising proportionately.

Members of New Jersey’s Sierra Club, who say the only “problem” with bears in Connecticut is lack of education to teach people how to live a life as a prisoner so bears can destroy anything they wish, also deliberately lie to say that in New Jersey, after instituting a bear hunt, nothing has changed. Officials with the CDEEP say the data they have on New Jersey shows a marked decrease in the number of bear/human interactions.

This, of course, is a great example of the “post normal” world in which we have been forced to live in. The end justifies the means and either side repeats anything they want, claiming it as “the truth” in order to fulfill their personal agendas.

What to believe and why should any of us believe anything anymore?

Added Note: This report claims that New Jersey’s bear population continues to grow and the overall bear population nationwide has doubled in more than a century to over 400,000.



Bear Visits Home: Obviously The Woman Failed to “Look Big”

“A resident of Stagecoach Road in Avon, Connecticut, received an unexpected visitor last week.

A black bear showed up on the woman’s back deck Wednesday morning while the homeowner was making brownies.

The woman said the bear spent about half an hour on the deck, standing up and putting its paws up on the glass sliding door leading to the kitchen.”<<<Read More>>>


Maybe The New Education Secretary Knew More About Bears Than the Laughers

Outdoor Hub is reporting that the new Education Secretary may have been quite accurate when she stated that guns might be necessary in schools to protect students from bears.

WSFB TV in Connecticut reports that two schools in Southington were put in Lockdown due to the presence of bear(s). The report claims that when last seen the bear was headed East……….perhaps headed into Massachusetts looking for that Indian Senator?


Evidently Global Warming is Causing More Moose in Connecticut

…Or something.

Ridgefield, Connecticut, where I have heard that at Trick or Treat time, butlers, dressed in black tie and tails, answer the door presenting the greedy little monsters with one-pound Hershey bars on a silver platter, is considering difficulties in what to do with a growing moose population.

Oh, the confusion!

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive…or maybe it’s partly due to the lack of an honest education and the failure to gain truthful understanding. But, that doesn’t sell copies much.

The Ridgefield Press runs a story that first claims that in history regarding the moose, “the natives killed only what they absolutely needed.” Such conservationist purists those Native Americans were…in our garbage-filled minds. Were these the same conservationist purists natives that ran buffalo over cliffs just for the fun of it? No, I guess there were no buffalo in Connecticut back when, in our ignorant eyes, everything was perfect, meticulously cared for, i.e. the ultimate in “sustainability.” The natives must have called it Agenda 17?

I don’t want to miss the bigger false picture here. Moose are commonly found today in places like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Idaho, and yes, I’m sure I’ve offended somebody because I didn’t mention their state. In all of those states, we are told that moose are dying due to global warming climate change.

Today, we learned that the Constitution State – Connecticut – has a moose herd numbering 120 and growing. Some of those moose have wandered into the town of Ridgefield.

The article seems to attribute the regrowth of moose in Connecticut to an end of farming and logging. That there are now dense forests in parts of Connecticut, seems to be the reason given that moose are returning – no thought about the actual habitat and whether it is conducive to growing moose. Nope, if there are trees all animals will live and thrive. It’s in a book somewhere.

In just about every state that has moose in them – these are all northern states -, officials say that moose are on the very southern fringe of their range and that because of global warming (they like to hide behind the term climate change now) the moose are dying out and/or moving north to colder climes. In addition, some of these same northern states, in order to take full advantage of free money (wink, wink). research is being conducted on the moose and how winter ticks contribute to their demise. Of course, an upsurge in winter ticks is caused by…you guessed it, global warming climate change.

I suppose that biologists steer clear of any consideration of loss of moose due to predators, because there’s no money in it and they have yet to make a global warming climate change connection between predators and the killing of moose. It will come though. It’s only a matter of time.

Global warming Climate change, we are told, is killing our moose, partly because, we are told, the moose in the Lower 48 are at their southern fringe of existence. The same biologists tell us that the whitetail deer in places like Maine, are at their northern fringe of suitable habitat. Water in a river can’t run in both directions, no more that global warming climate change can be responsible for killing moose, while at the same time not causing the deer herd to thrive. It’s only common sense.

Moose in Connecticut, according to the experts, are far south of their “southern fringe.” According to information in this article, environmentalists drove out all the farmers and put an end to logging, and the result is more moose – apparently with no consideration for global warming climate change.

Now just how can that be?




Bear Chases Runners In Connecticut, Euthanasia Planned

And obviously, these runners FAILED to LOOK BIG enough!

Connecticut officials say they plan to euthanize a bear that chased two runners in separate incidents at a game refuge in Granby.

Source: Bear Chases Runners In Connecticut, Euthanasia Planned | 2015-05-06 | Grand View Outdoors



How Important Is It to Know Exactly How Many Deer There Are?

I think that sometimes sportsmen get a bit hung up on having to know exactly how many of any game animal exists. I suppose at some level, knowing this makes us feel better…or worse. And, I would also suppose that wildlife biologists also get hung up, perhaps more accurately, cave to the social pressures from outside sources demanding to know precisely how many deer, or other animals, there are.

In a recent letter to the editor of a Connecticut Online newspaper, a writer claims the deer population estimating system being used by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is flawed, but the new Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) survey is accurate. Neither system is completely accurate, but the FLIR may be more accurate than the method being used by DEEP.

It is important to understand what this letter writer is saying. His claim is that by using FLIR the survey determined that in a 60-square-mile area of Connecticut, 689 deer were counted. This calculated out to 11.41 deer per square mile.

By comparison, the old method of estimating deer populations, according to the writer, had the deer population in the same area at 33.5 deer per square mile.

The author claims that this shows the town has lost a lot of deer because of hunting. Huh?

Regardless of how deer are counted or estimated, deer populations realistically do not change only the estimated number. If the DEEP used nothing more than numbers to determine hunting harvest quotas, there might need to be some concern about what was really going on with deer numbers. It would appear, from what I am gathering for information, that this is not the case. As with most fish and game managers, an estimated deer population is used only as a relative measure of deer densities. When managers factor in the realities of what is taking place on the ground and compare that with the baseline deer population estimates, then population management decisions are made.

Instead of getting all upset because a possibly more accurate counting system was employed that determined a closer estimation of the actual deer population, and because that new estimation is much lower than the DEEP estimate, certainly doesn’t mean the town lost all of those deer.

If it is determined that the FLIR counting method is that much more accurate, then there should be a certain amount of celebrating to do because more accurate numbers should make managing a bit easier. However, we should understand that even if the FLIR is more accurate, the estimate given is still just a baseline in which to operate from. The actual number of deer is all relative.

For me personally, the importance I place on knowing what the fish and game department estimates the deer population, is determined by the estimated comparisons from year to the next based upon the same method of estimating deer numbers. When counting methods change and the method continues for many years, then all comparisons must be made only within that counting method.

As a hunter, I base my judgement of deer populations in the areas where I hunt, on what I am able to visually see. If I see more deer and more signs of the presence of deer, I know my opportunities to harvest a deer increase. The reverse of this holds true as well. Is it important to me to know that technology provides more accurate counting? Not really. What is going on in the forests that I hunt is not going to change simply because one method counted more or less deer.

Each state’s fish and game biologists will make management and deer harvest decisions based on many things. An accurate counting system should make the task a bit easier. Poor management will result in lost opportunities for hunters, not how accurate estimation are.


Best Available Guessing

Most like to call it “Best Available Science.” I prefer to recognize it as cherry picking what best fits the plan of garnering monies and promoting agendas. However, perhaps we can call efforts in making decisions in wildlife management as best available guessing.

Case in point: In an area of Connecticut officials are setting up study areas in hopes of learning more about the best ways in which to reduce or eliminate ticks that carry Lyme disease. It seems that there is some disagreement over how many deer live in the area.

The “official” counting method has determined that within the four study areas, there are approximately 29 to 30 deer per square mile – a high amount when it is considered that the management goal is around 10 deer per square mile. However, an independent effort at counting deer, has determined there to be 7.42 deer per square mile.

Is this significant? Well, when you consider that the effort to control ticks has evolved into reducing the number of deer to accomplish that task, I think it might be safe to say that those differences of estimated deer populations are highly significant and detrimental to arriving at reliable data from any study.

Bill Hyatt, bureau chief of the bureau of natural resources for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), said, “The counts we’ve been doing are accurate to the level we need them to be.” I’m not sure I understand that statement. Two things that scientific studies depend on are constants (control) and accurate data from within the control area. Without these how reliable does any study become?

If a proposed theory is that the density of the population of deer is a driving factor behind the spread of Lyme disease, it only seems prudent that a count of deer must be highly accurate and not “accurate to the level we need” it to be. To make that statement, in my mind, is saying that deer densities from two different counts showing a wide disparity in numbers isn’t an issue of concern. I think it should be. There are other influencing factors that can become part of the overall equation depending up deer densities to begin with. Are those being calculated? How could it be if they don’t know the population density to begin with?

To further complicate this study and effort, in addition to having to question any results determined from this study, are the results of recent studies that birds may be the biggest factor of all in the spread of ticks that carry Lyme disease. Can you accurately determine the effect of deer on the spread of Lyme disease if birds within these four study areas are contributing to the spread?

We all must question whether or not best available science is being used here in making decisions in wildlife management and disease control. If methods used to count deer end up with such vast differences in outcomes, then how can any method be anything more than best available guessing? Or is this another one of those studies whose main purpose is to grab grant monies and/or tax dollars to keep people employed with the government?



Connecticut: Coyotes Attacks Three Dogs

“Everyone knows that small pets can be at risk for coyote attacks. But, CBS New York reports that a coyote attacked three large dogs, in addition to one small dog, in Stamford, Conn., last week. Luckily, all of the dogs escaped with minor cuts and scratches.

This is very odd, because three of the dogs — a shepherd mix, a golden retriever and a German short-haired pointer – are all obviously much larger than this coyote,” said Stamford police Capt. Richard Conklin.

Police said coyote attacks have increased this winter because of the extremely harsh weather conditions. In fact, coyotes have been found living under people’s decks.(emboldening added)<<<Read More>>>

Many of us have been preaching for years that under the right circumstances predator attacks on humans and other large “prey” is not all the odd.



It’s Not a Hunt. It’s a “Deer Removal Program”

I’m glad we have the terminology down pat. Hunting evidently is bad. Systematic slaughtering of deer, while luring them to bait, is good, providing the corporate-fascist government runs the “program” and the socialist-communist society approve. I think it was bad to hunt and kill deer until “the habitat destroyed”, “unhealthy”, “not enough food”, “particularly stressed”, “deep snow”, “more frequently seen”, “both alive and dead”, “18,000 deer-vehicle accidents”, “deer-vehicle accidents”.

Hunting bad! Deer Removal Program good! The only thing good about it is the food isn’t being wasted; or at least that is what is being told to us.



Big Critter Ain’t No Mountain Lion

“State wildlife officials have concluded the big cat seen roaming around the Pine Street area is a bobcat.

But that’s pretty neat in and of itself, said Marion Larson, chief of information and education at the state division of fisheries and wildlife.

“People think they are about the size of a house cat, but they’re not,” Ms. Larson said.”<<<Read More>>>