December 18, 2018

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

At What Point Will Maine Hunters Simply Hang up Their Deer Rifles?

In Bob Humphreys’ article this week, he does a very respectable job of explaining to his readers about the politics of deer management. His basic premise is that as the deer management goals are changing, opportunities to hunt deer will continue to diminish, a result of attempting to sustain a deer herd at “social carrying capacity” rather than biological carrying capacity.

In his article, he writes: “In other words, some areas (central and southern Maine) could support between 40 to 60 deer per square mile with no deleterious effects on the natural habitat, and would be well within the limits biologists strive for under the precepts of sound deer management. But then current management objectives for those areas were 15 to 20 deer per square mile.”

Environmentalism’s powerful lobby has extended to a point where not only have their objectives become an integral part of our basic education curriculum, but the continued effects have successfully bred environmentalist-minded young wildlife biologists/managers who now are the majority with our fish and wildlife agencies.

A major problem exists as we attempt to look into the future of deer hunting in Maine and elsewhere. Brainwashed by Environmentalism, it is impossible to understand or acknowledge the vital importance that hunting plays in managing and sustaining a deer herd. Without hunting, there is no way to control growth…period. It doesn’t take a Ph. D. to understand that in places where hunting is not permitted, there are eventually problems with too many deer and with too many deer there are problems with disease and the spread of it – diseases harmful to humans.

I repeatedly have heard the claim from animal rights people and environmentalists that they are not trying to stop hunting. Well, perhaps not directly. The ending of hunting is one of their major goals. Through propaganda and lobbying efforts if environmentalists can convince enough people that there is a need to reduce the deer population to levels that will limit automobile collisions, reduce Lyme disease, and stop them hungry critters eating their expensive shrubbery, bringing the herd to numbers low enough to achieve that might effectively put an end to deer hunting, at least as we know it and certainly as it used to be.

There exists a line of effective interest, where if that line is moved further and further to the point where the effort at deer hunting yields few or little results, interest in the activity will evaporate. At what point will it have to reach in order that so few will want to hunt deer anymore that hunting as a management tool can no longer be usable?

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service surveys, the number one reason fewer people hunt is that they don’t have the time. This may be true but doesn’t it become harder to justify taking the time to hunt if the hunting is poor?

I can only speak for myself. I have always loved to deer hunt. In my prime, I hunted in any weather for the majority of days that deer hunting season was open. I most often took home a deer by end of the season. Today, the effort is no longer there. I believe the biggest contributing factor is that in the past 10 years of deer hunting, I can count on one hand how many deer I have SEEN in the woods. Granted, some of that lack of success is due to aging and reduced effort, but a lot of that reduced effort has become perpetuating. In other words, it becomes harder and harder to yard this tired aging body out of bed at 4 a.m. to be in the woods before it gets daylight because the motivation to see deer and have an opportunity to bag one is gone. As a matter of fact, it seems I look for excuses not to go out, especially if the weather is threatening.

Where once Maine set herd management goals for deer to approach 400,000 animals, their latest management goals call for 210,000 deer by the year 2033. Simple mathematical logic might tell us that in theory if there were the same number of hunters 20 years ago as there are today, the odds of bagging a deer have been cut in half. It takes a person completely in love with the act of hunting to pursue an animal that gives a hunter a less than 20% chance at filling his freezer. Some say the challenge increases which is some kind of a draw, but that is not the interest of the majority of those looking for meat. As chances shrink so does interest.

What kind of a conundrum will the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries (MDIFW) be in when, due to environmentalist-spurned deer management, they have successfully driven away enough hunters so that they cannot depend on hunters and their long-standing “Any-Deer Permit” system to deplete the herd to “social carrying capacity?”

Regardless of whether deer management is paid for with license purchases or through general taxation, if the deer hunting sucks, nobody will want to hunt anymore and then what?

Share

Record Number of Doe Permits Unanimously Approved by Maine Advisory Council

There were no objections from the Advisory Council to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) proposal to issue nearly 85,000 “Any-Deer” permits for this upcoming deer hunting season – an all-time record number.

Sensible people might have thought that with the state’s deer hunting still running at abysmal levels in some places of the state with harvest numbers continually far below what used to be normal, at least one member of the Advisory Council would have objected to this proposal.

It has been made clear that the majority of the increase comes in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) where last year’s projected (or hoped-for) doe harvest was not reached. However, I find it most unscientific when the MDIFW repeatedly says, “The proposed increase in permits is a result of the goals and objectives set by the public in the state’s big-game management plan…”

Scape Goat?

Evidently, in this modern era in which Environmentalism rules game management plans are driven by social demands and not by science. MDIFW may become another laughing stock as they move toward a focus on “healthy” game species rather than paying much attention to numbers. History has proven that with overgrown numbers of any species, health becomes the number one issue. Wildlife over-protection is an agenda item of Environmentalists which is a “social” action in which MDIFW now makes their management decisions by. Along with that over-protection comes large swings in animal populations, especially when disease and predators, are “balancing” nature.

It will be interesting to see the results of this increase in “Any-Deer” permits. MDIFW claims that the quota for doe kills was not reached in all but six of the WMDs, but have failed to answer the question as to why – was it due to too few permits issued for those regions or lack of licensed hunters and/or enough time to hunt in order to reach those quotas? It does make a difference.

If there are simply not enough hunters and/or the season isn’t long enough to reach the desired harvest, certainly adding more permits, by 28%, will do little to reach those desired harvest levels.

And please don’t tell us that does aren’t being shot because there is an over-abundance of bucks.

Permit winners will be announced September 7.

 

Share

Maine County Employees Running Into Too Many Deer, Moose, Bear

While running into these large animals can cause property damage and serious bodily injury, how many incidents are too many? In an article found online, it is stated that “In Aroostook County, encountering animals such as a moose and deer on the roadway is a fact of life.”

If it’s a fact of life, then isn’t it also a no-brainer that if there are too many accidents involving these large animals, it would appear the drivers need some behavior modification. But then again, as is stated in the article “We had 13 [insurance] claims [filed] for Aroostook County over the past three years, and more than half of them were because the employee hit an animal on the roadway.”

So then are we to assume that in three years time there were 7 accidents or 2.3 per year? How does that compare with miles driven etc.? Too many accidents? What’s that mean?

It all kind of reminds me of the somewhat aged country music song, “Too Much Fun.”

Too much fun, what’s that mean?
It’s like too much money, there’s no such thing
It’s like a girl too pretty with too much class
Being too lucky, a car too fast
No matter what they say, I’ve done
But I ain’t never had too much fun

Share

Repeating False History of Wolves

The other day I was reading an article in which the author quoted a section of Maine’s Game Management Plan for deer. The portion quoted that caught my eye was: “In the 19th century, extirpation of wolves and cougars from Maine allowed deer to further expand and increase in number essentially unencumbered by predation.”

The use of the term “extirpate” is interestingly convenient. According to an Online definition and from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, extirpate is defined as “root out and destroy completely” and/or “to destroy completely; wipe out.” Upon further examination of “wipe out” I discovered: “the act or an instance of wiping out: complete or utter destruction; a fall or crash caused usually by losing control”.

It would, therefore, be safe to conclude that to extirpate something – in this case, wolves and cougars in Maine – would involve the deliberate act of men to purposely, or without knowledge, “completely destroy” and wipe out populations of these predators. Is this factual history?

I guess that depends on who you talk to and what you choose to believe according to what most conveniently fits your agenda, ideology, and narrative.

The use of the term extirpate, which points a big fat accusatory finger at evil men, is forever used when any form of wildlife disappears or more accurately within this lopsided and misinformed society when wildlife doesn’t appear in numbers to satisfy the social demands of some.

To environmentalists and to animal rights perverts, Man is evil. They cause about as much chaos as global warming – which is also caused by man in their eyes – and at the same time hunting causes wildlife species to grow. According to the expert EnvironMENTALists, hunting, fishing, and trapping has and is causing the extirpation of wildlife species every day, and yet, when convenient, that same action causes species like predators to magically perform some sort of compensatory increase in sexual activity and a boost in reproductive rates. Scientism on full display, bolstered by Romance Biology and Voodoo Science.

According to the quote by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), wolves and cougars in Maine were extirpated (by men) in the 19th Century and this act caused the population of deer to grow “unencumbered by predation.”

I have not spent a lot of time read searching cougars in Maine but I have studied the history of wolves and coyotes in Maine quite extensively. It appears that MDIFW, and all willing and eager True Believers, want to believe that man by deliberate intention “completely destroyed” the wolf population in the state. And yet, there is little history that supports that statement.

History is loaded with accounts of the troubles that Mainers had with wolves dating back into the 1600s and yet little is written about many wolves being killed for those actions, not necessarily due to lack of trying.

Actual historic accounts of wolves in Maine, show their presence but, like the deer population, there was no honest way of knowing what the real population of wolves was other than anecdotal evidence. It is more convenient for us to make up population estimates pertaining to history in order to complete our narratives.

In some cases, there were bounties established in hopes of ridding the residents of depredation attacks on their livestock, but there is no history that shows a systematic approach to “extirpate” the wolf and cougar from the Maine landscape.

Aside from the fur of the wolf during the winter months, neither animal had much value – certainly, it was not a food source. It isn’t to say that the open season on wolves and cougars didn’t contribute to the control of these predators, but history simply doesn’t give a blanket cause and effect of what happened to both of these large predators, especially to be able to continue to state that man extirpated these beasts – directly or indirectly.

Sometimes we get so caught up in our angst and eagerness to blame the existence of the human race on everything, including global warming, we put aside honest historical and scientific research and take the easy way out. Such is the case here I’m afraid.

Maine’s historical accounts of wolves actually show an interesting phenomenon – or at least from my perspective based on my read search. Maine also used to have caribou roaming about the countryside, mostly found in the northern half of the state. It is either unforgotten or never learned that wolves, will eat deer but prefer elk, moose, and/or caribou. But let’s also not forget that when hungry and wolf will eat anything, including dirt to stop the hunger pangs.

Maine history tells us that when wolves and cougars were part of the countryside, deer migrated south, away from the large predators, and often took up residence on the islands off the coast of the Pine Tree State – their learned adaptation for survival.

Environmentalists eagerly want to blame the actions of man for the “extirpation” of the caribou. At the time caribou were present in Maine, there were little management and regulatory guidelines to ensure sustainability. But, like the wolf, did man “extirpate” the caribou from Maine?

Not according to many historical documents. Perhaps more accurately we see an interesting phenomenon that happened in Maine. It is written by some historians that suddenly the caribou, for reasons at the time unexplained, simply migrated out of the state and likely found their way into Canada. Whether directly related or not, along with the departure of the caribou, disappeared the wolf – the common sense explanation given that the wolves simply followed their preferred food source.

As a society, we tend to hate men and their actions, while at the same time near worshiping animals and extolling their intelligence. Some animals are quite crafty and to ensure survival, these animals learn to adapt.

Man, on the other hand, was given a brain, and while at times I might question whether we know how to use it, generally speaking, we have used our brains to figure out there must be limits and plans devised and carried out in order to maintain wildlife populations. For the most part, these actions have done remarkable things where most negative consequences seem to be the result of actions by environmentalism and animal rights groups, i.e. perpetuating and protecting large predators at the expense of other more valuable species such as game animals as a useful resource.

I might suggest that it would do a world of good if men would learn to use that brain a bit more to discover the full truth of historical wildlife accounts and stop repeating what somebody else said simply because you like it or it sounds good. That does no good for anybody.

Share

Are Tracking Collars for Deer Problematic?

I guess the answer to that question might be dependent on who you talk to. According to an article I read this morning, (photos available) with the ongoing deer study program taking place in Maine and New Brunswick, Canada, a handful of deer with collars are showing the fur of the deer around the neck worn down to the skin.

Some are concerned about this condition, but according to Dr. Graham Forbes, a wildlife biologist for New Brunswick, it’s only a small number of deer that have developed this problem. However, he also stated: “We’ve talked to some vets and the feeling is there is no great concern for heat loss or damage…”

I know I am guilty of projecting human conditions onto an animal but when the weather is cold outside and my neck is exposed to the elements I wouldn’t like it much.

If it can be agreed that the entire event is basically harmless to the deer, then for no other reason than it just doesn’t look good, this needs to be corrected.

It seems that the majority of the collars that have bothered deer have been removed.

 

Share

Cornell University to Kill Deer by a Continual Rut

Some people are fed up with the utter nonsense that flows from every contaminated corner of our society, including universities of higher brain manipulation and indoctrination. Cornell University has to be among the leaders.

In 2014, due to the belief by Cornell and nearby Cayuga Heights, N.Y. that deer possess “reproductive health is a cervine right,” female deer were given tubal ligations believing this would stop the growth of the deer population. The result: does remained in estrous continually which attracted every male deer for miles causing the already dense population of deer to increase due to bucks seeking pleasure from the wafting essence of  “doe-in-heat.”

Well, the university is at it again. An article carried, willingly, by the New York Times, says that Cornell has undertaken a program on Staten Island to reduce the overgrown population of deer. This time, they are spending $3.3 million to give all the male deer a vasectomy. Yup, you read that right.

Now consider. When a doe deer (the female species) goes into “heat” or estrous, they essentially will remain in that state until conception is completed. I might be going out on a limb here to say that I have my doubts that the male deer (bucks) have cognitive abilities to realize they have had a vasectomy and thus they will run themselves ragged (to death) attempting to satisfy the estrous does.

Understanding the habits of male deer during the rut, one can only imagine the number of car collisions caused by bucks gone wild, a condition Cornell is contracted to help cure.

One also has to wonder to what extent a buck will go fulfilling his “duty” to mate with every “in heat” doe he whiffs. In Maine, where winters are far harsher than on Staten Island, at times the bucks will exhaust themselves and starve themselves as essentially 100% of their time is spent involved in “getting some.” With doe deer in continual estrous, will a buck deer kill himself in the attempt?

I would suppose, however, that if the community of Staten Island is also of the general impression that “reproductive health is a cervine right,” then they deserve the outcome of their perverse and utterly foolish and expensive program.

It will undoubtedly result in buck deer having an erection that lasts for more than 4 hours, and so, who are they going to call? If a man walking around with an erection for more than 4 hours is worthy of a phone call to the doctor, and if deer have a “cervine right” to reproductive health, is this not a clear case of animal abuse?

In addition, we know, but are not deterred, that multiple sex partners results in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. With doe deer in a perpetual horny stage and buck deer, not unlike the male human species, eager to please, surely there will be an exponential explosion of multiple sex partners among the deer. Is there a risk of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among the deer, or other health risks? With the deer, having no say in their “right” to reproductive health, isn’t this another clear example of animal abuse?

There is no end to this idiocy!

Share

Something Is In The Air…Or on a Tree

Share

More Nonsensical Nonsense About Man’s “Impoverish”ing Wildlife

As nauseating as it is, we hear it all the time – how man is destroying everything and how man is disrupting the balance of nature… which doesn’t exist. Most often mixed in with the rant about how man treats animals we hear, although most often implied, that man should just go away. That, of course, can only be defined as man must die in order to save the animals and our ecosystems.

Last time I checked the Earth is inhabited with a variety of plant and animal life, and while many often want to see man disappear, none are willing to step forward and be the first to do what they have deemed in their tiny minds as the only right thing to do to “Save the Planet.”

In addition, we can also read really stupid things. Here’s an example. This author evidently believes that it is wrong to “manage” game species for surplus harvest. He writes, “A typical response of utilitarians to environmental harm is to call for better management.  So, for example, wildlife agencies manage game species and their habitat so that more of the desired species are available for “harvest.”  In Maine, we manage coyote (that is encourage hunting coyotes) because of the belief that coyotes reduce the number of deer for hunters.”

Simply stated, this is a reasonable approach to utilizing a valuable resource rather than letting it go to waste. Science does show us that within a robust population of, let’s say deer, a percentage of those animals will suffer and die simply because there are too many of them. Is this somehow better than harvesting a percentage to fulfill the wants and needs of people?

Although we could argue this point until the moon turns blue, a point I wanted to make is that while this author finds it wrong to manipulate animal and game populations for the benefit of all, including hunting, he evidently sees no problem with manipulating feral and domestic cat populations for the benefit of “saving” song birds. “As I pointed out in an early blog…, feral cats and cats whose owners let them roam outside kill hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, song birds each year.  Why is it that we get to choose that a species we domesticated is more important than wild birds?”

The fact is, people are never going to take it upon themselves to either leave their cats, and all their other pets indoors. Therefore, the only other course of action to “save song birds” is to kill cats. While the author questions whether manipulating the number of coyotes that kill deer, that are used as a food source, is an ethical thing to do, evidently the feral and domestic cats don’t share the same rights of existence as the coyote. In addition, I guess it just depends on one’s selfish desires of how they want to take advantage of wildlife.

No matter how you view the use of our God-given resources, I wonder, if ever, people will one day realize and admit that man is on this earth and that it belongs to them…even if for a short time? We simply cannot approach wildlife management with any formula that does not include the existence of man.

Share

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

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

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

Share