March 25, 2019

New Maine IFW Commissioner is a Birdwatcher…Tweet, Tweet, Tweet

That just about covers it from what I can gather. I’ve read just about every puff piece that has been written about Maine’s new commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and it appears that when we were promised that her agenda would be “revealed” after the nomination and election process was completed, the Press/Media/Echo-chamber has decided that Judy Camuso is a birdwatcher. I’m afraid that qualification will do little to grow the number of licensed hunters, ward off repeated attacks and lawsuits from environmentalists and animal rights quacks, solve the missing deer herd dilemma, reduce the overgrown black bear population, or mitigate winter ticks that are destroying the moose herd, while increasing the interest in hunting, fishing, and trapping.

But birdwatching is about the extent of it. Either no member of the lamestream press has enough intestinal fortitude to ask any tough questions or Camuso is faster than a speeding bullet able to dodge questions better than any slick politician.

Oh, we are beginning to hear sputtering of how with some “magic beans” to plant, Commissioner Camuso is going to “reach across the aisle” and create the best version of Kumbaya you ever did hear as the magic bean stalk is going to grow tall because the Left and the Right are going to hold hands (of course singing Kumbaya…or is it I Want to Teach the World to Sing in Perfect Harmony?) and water the bean stalk together. AMEN! Praise the Lord!. I need to take a “selfie.”

In an article I read just the other day, once again we are supposed to swallow the notion that what Camuso did during the last anti-bear hunting referendum defines who the person is and what she is going to do. Really? The article took a few liberties and wrote: “…but Camuso believes during the bear referendum she proved her commitment to maintaining hunting practices, including those used to manage the state’s 35,000 black bears. Camuso gave countless talks defending the department’s position… She also vehemently defended the department’s right to take a position on a citizen’s initiative.”

She was almost revealed in a way when the author of this piece took the liberty to state that Camuso “proved her commitment” to hunting practices. However, it was more accurately spelled out that she was very good at defending the rights and positions of the Department of which she was not the head of. And she promoted the position of the department at that time while under the direction of Chandler Woodcock and a governor that didn’t buy into environmentalism so much.

In the article she further explains how she was “committed to our staff,” and swelled with pride to say that even though it was claimed she had death threats during the bear referendum she, “…managed to also hold on to support from the naturalist community.”

I mean, seriously! Think about it…if possible anymore. Why would anyone think with the election of a very far Left governor, that such a politically biased person would appoint a director of the MDIFW who was not able and willing to promote the agendas and ideology of that governor?

I wish some bold member of the press (oxymoron) would simply ask Camuso if push came to shove, will she stand up for the North American Wildlife Management Plan, where game animals are managed as a resources for surplus harvest by hunting, fishing, and trapping, or will she manage according to the high-pressure social demands of environmentalists and animal rights degenerates. It does make a difference.

The Left believes you can manage wildlife at healthy levels by leaving them alone; meaning no hunting. Does the new commissioner believe that is possible? It does make a difference. It can’t be both ways, especially when one side does all the giving while the other does all the taking.

All you idealists can toss out the window any hope that Camuso is going to get the environmentalists to “understand” the hunting community. Understanding is a noun that’s been missing from the vocabulary of the Left for far too long. They do not have any understanding of real science or any notion of a compromise. They want what they want and they will get it no matter the price they and others must pay.

The only real hope in a future that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping is that a government fish and wildlife department does what has been proven successful for many decades and not follow in the path of Environmentalism that practices false Scientism.

I have yet to see anyone who espouses to birdwatching, hiking, kayaking and many other outdoor pursuits and DOES NOT HUNT have a good understanding of the value of this hunting heritage or the toxic onslaught from the Left against hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Nothing would make me any happier than to find out the things I am believing to be true about the new commissioner are completely wrong.

Please make me wrong! It is the only hope of a future that includes hunting, trapping, and fishing.

Share

“When, how…and by whom?”

I recently wrote some colleagues that”:

“Bad laws” not only “ensure bad results”: they are like the bushel baskets full of oysters (and salt water) that some East Coast bay man totes in the bed of his pickup from boat to market 5 days a week.  Pretty soon the bed and then the truck shows evidence of rusty corrosion but by then it is too late.  The rust spreads, the value of the truck plummets to nothing, and he just keeps driving it until it falls apart.

These bad laws are like that salt water dripping from those baskets and we are noticing more and more corrosion while we try to tell ourselves that it isn’t too bad and we should get more years from the truck.  But we are just fooling ourselves. Rural America (and urban America as well but no one dares mention it) is the truck and we not only no longer care for it but we abuse it (and the people that live there and use it) because we accept lies from government on behalf of the rich and powerful about what a good thing it is to protect large, deadly and destructive predators that eradicate game animals, ranchers, and rural communities on behalf of pagan claptrap about biology and more hidden agendas than termites in an African termite mound.

A colleague responded that:

No need to explain why something needs to be done about this ever-increasing problem, the next line of questions, when, how…and by whom?”

——————————————————————————————————————-

My response-

THE problem is (unjust, un-Constitutional, tyrannical, etc.) absolute power given to central government bureaucrats in federal legislation like the ESA, Animal Welfare Act and similar Acts “enforced”, administered and regulated by US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service, EPA, US Forest Service and BLM.  In a word, it is Political.

Regarding wolves; federal bureaucracies, and especially USFWS, have stolen money from state wildlife agencies, introduced and protected wolves and with few exceptions converted the State Wildlife Agencies and environmental scientists, Universities and “science” into little more than paid subcontractors for federal agendas.  Federal politicians and bureaucrats are rewarded with money, votes (mostly urban) and fame for doing what rich individuals and rich and radical environmental organizations want for a host of hidden agendas from eliminating hunting and private property in vast swaths of America to reducing the human population and stripping most of the human benefits created in the past century.

Both federal Legislatures and the Presidency benefit from happy environmental radicals and the “Deep State”, “Swamp”, (whatever you want to call it) that manages ESA, wolves, grizz, etc. for them.  Federal judges are nominated and ratified by those folks and this accounts for the increasing national divide in courtrooms reflected in whether “your” judge emerged under Democrat or Republican reigns.

The naked truth is that, like abortion, the Democrat Party is 100% behind this environmentalism and anyone deviating from that absolute support is marginalized and either silenced or removed.  The Republican Party has many members that talk a good game about “doing something” about these matters depending on the temper of those that elect them, but it is only talk.  Given the declining rural voting numbers, electing and expecting a good person to be able to fight to limit the power of the bureaucracy in these matters is wistful, to say the least.

All through this the federal bureaucracy gets increasing budgets, more higher-grade positions (and retirements), bigger bonuses, and a publicly unchallengeable authority no matter the basis or outcomes.

The current Administration boasts it is “de-regulating” and it is but “de-regulating” is only a temporary fix because it only reflects the authority of the current President and his appointees.  What they do can (and will) be undone done in a New York nanosecond by the next President who, if the last fifty years tell us anything, will be a “Deep State” or ”Swamp” enabler to his or her bones as will their successor for a long time.  The Mueller Probe alone tells us that but don’t forget the IRS, FBI and DOJ’s recent history as political weapons that appear to only be growing bolder and stronger about controlling us on behalf of our rulers. Consider getting political support for things like wolves and grizzlies in this climate.  A Yukon trapper just killed a grizzly near his cabin and then discovered his 10-month-old baby and its mother ripped apart where they had tried to flee the same grizzly.  Do we hear even one peep from rural Americans in the Lower 48 about the insanity of spreading and protecting grizzly bears by the federal government in the Lower 48?  From any of “our” NGO’s or state governments?

The current Administration tells us they are “purging” environmental radical bureaucrats.  I watched the current federal natural resource bureaucrats pop up out of the mud in the 1980’s and 90’s, often in high positions immediately.  Using the new race and sex preferences that financially benefitted cooperating top managers quite handsomely; common sense and scientifically educated bureaucrats were steadily replaced by extremist activists with actual animus toward the agencies and their historic missions FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE LIVING WITH AND/OR UTILIZING THOSE RESOURCES.  Not only 20+years of such “purging” and hiring (I was terminated in 2000) but more importantly how they each replicated each other when hiring, promoting and awarding bonuses like wolves and grizzlies being imposed into settled landscapes has created a federal (and most state) radical workforce that if not reduced by 75% each year and then kept below 25% of current levels while Universities and science are reformed, will defy any controls by whatever it takes.

Unless we amend this top-down, federal mandate approach to wildlife management, all the “de-regulation” and personnel changes will be temporary at best.  So, one might ask, “what can we do”?  We must change the authority and jurisdictions that has been given to federal bureaucrats and replace it with a restoration of state authority over wildlife in the State excepting those species covered by ratified Treaties.  Federal concerns about “endangered” species (not sub sp., races, populations, etc.) should be proposed to the State with rationale, objective and federal funding for however long proposed.  State acceptance should allow amendments and require both legislative and Governor acceptance.  This is where rural residents of the state need to restructure the state ratification of such proposals to give rural residents increased ratification weight in the approval process.

So how do we get there in the present political “climate”? 

I live in a very liberal, Democrat state.  The only Republican elected last month was a dogcatcher in some rural norther County and has since been forced to flee when Antifa arrived in town. (That is a joke.)

About 4 hours ago I put out my flag and picked up my Saturday edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune in the driveway.  When I opened it, the front page had an article, “Students get charged up about climate change”.  Here are some excerpts:

  • “When it comes to confronting climate change” “Some adults get struck on certain things” and “No is not acceptable.”
  • “Youthful advocates are leading rallies, gathering petitions and taking daring climate resolutions to City Halls and County Boardrooms”.
  • “But they’ve also studied their own backyards – from the urban core to the suburbs and small towns.”
  • “So iMatter (sic note the little ‘you’ in the name of one of this little-known enviro front organization) studies the energy behind other movements, including the fight for civil rights and same sex marriage.”
  • “Emotions make movements.”
  • “Young people can personalize this, can reach people at an emotional level.”
  • “Cities can make a big difference.”  “You get an enough grass roots action happening… it can force the state and federal government to move.”
  • “The city (sic Grand Marais, an expensive, elite enclave on the North Shore of Lake Superior) has even hired a climate change Coordinator, a position funded by a McKnight Foundation Grant.”
  • “It’s a very individualistic place”, said Craig Feist, 17, of Finlayson, about 100 miles north of the Twin Cities.  “People have their land, and they consider that their domain and do kind of whatever they want to do on it.”

Now I could call this a Socialist/Communist approach to brainwashing young minds and setting the stage for a government takeover because it is the reverse of Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution wherein the rural peasants occupied and purged the cities and the elites.  It is a rare glimpse into how these liberal bastions gain, keep and control political power.  Here we have the privileged elites using their children to lay the groundwork for purging the countryside and those yokels that oppose any of their agendas. However, I ask you to consider how “our side” in this environmental confrontation has behaved and can be expected to continue to behave:

  • Do we energize young rural students to dismiss adults with whom they disagree?
  • Do we send kids into the cities to explain what wolves and grizzlies and many other GI (Government Issue) animals are doing to our communities?
  • Do we send kids forth to defend property rights to property-less urbanites?
  • Do we condemn urbanites for being herd-animals (versus “individualistic”)?
  • Do we presume to brag that we have “studied” our home places and therefore have the right to lecture and abjure urban know-nothings?
  • Do we send forth youthful missionaries to cities to explain why it is so important to “Keep and Bear Arms”?
  • Would we rightly expect rural youth to be listened to in almost any city if they extolled such things publicly without fearing of violent reactions?

Until we can put the environmental genie of unjust federal power back in the bottle I cannot imagine how anything really changes.  We are forced to maneuver outside the walls of government about controlling wolves; limiting future areas to be infested; how controls will be effected; who will do the controlling; how long will controls be effected; and how will it all be paid for?  Traps are nasty and inhumane.  Snares are icky and unacceptable non-target species.  Planes are illegal and uncontrollable over property.  Can controls be forced in private properties or government landholdings?  When can control be exercised?  When killing livestock or pets?  When in a yard?  When appearing sick?  Who is responsible for rabid wolves or human infection outbreaks like tapeworms, etc.?  Can wolf population target levels be based on big game numbers, livestock depredations, human attacks or imagined threats like hanging around school bus stops?  Can hides be sold for trophies or home decorations?  Can any County or State say, “We don’t want any wolves here and we want to be able to kill any wolf here year-around”?

It is only realistic to see a hodgepodge of temporary and conflicting results emerging and being challenged (until the next President is elected).

Jim Beers

8 December 2018

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

My Recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

George Smith, an outdoor writer, and environmentalist, provides his readers with a list of his recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). I can’t say I agree with everything he is suggesting. I’ll explain why.

Smith wants a better open door policy at the MDIFW main office. I agree although I don’t use it and probably never will. You can’t fix a rigged system by using the rigged system.

George says it’s time for MDIFW to do something about turkeys. He says there are too many, that the fees and permitting system needs to be changed, bag limits raised, in order to motivate more hunters to take up turkey hunting.

I’m not a turkey hunter. I’ve never tried it and doubt that I will for a number of reasons. I will, however, concur that there are too many turkeys. I’ve never seen as many wild turkeys as I have this late summer and fall.

It is a known fact that management and acceptance of any wild animal on the landscape are heavily influenced by acceptance and satisfaction from the general public. When such animals become a nuisance and a public health and safety issue, acceptance by the public disappears in a hurry. Maine is reaching that point where they are considering the turkey to be a nuisance. I agree something should be done to get those numbers under better control.

It is my strong opinion that Maine has too many moose. This has caused the overwhelming growth in winter ticks that are destroying the moose herd. Maine should have been keeping the moose population at lower, healthier levels than growing them to numbers great enough to appease the selfish desires of tourists and hunters.

Smith suggests a program of capturing and “spraying” moose to kill the ticks. This is about as feasible as trapping deer and planting birth control devices in them. It certainly appears to me that the biggest motivational factor in finding ways to kill the ticks other than reducing the population is completely selfish. Whining and carrying on because moose gawking businesses can’t make enough money unless they can see moose anytime and everywhere they want to is not only selfish but it’s irresponsible. MDIFW is irresponsible in their management goals of the moose to attempt to grow moose to numbers that satisfy the tourist industry.

Smith says that Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s moose biologist, said he, “…believes that eventually the population will be reduced to a level where ticks will not be such a problem.” Eventually? Is this going to happen when the ticks (Natural Regulation) have successfully brought the number of moose to levels it should be through years of suffering moose, or is MDIFW actively manipulating the moose hunt to bring numbers to tick-free desired levels?

Hypocrisy exists when Smith in one breath suggests that moose numbers should be protected by finding ways to “spray” moose to kill ticks, while in the next talks about how proud he was to help facilitate the slaughter of deer on one of Maine’s coastal islands. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. While killing the deer was in the name of putting a stop to Lyme disease, evidently, such a suggestion informs us that ignorance is abundant when it comes to winter ticks, moose, and disease.

Marketing Maine by the Maine government to draw in tourists, hunters, anglers, hikers, etc. is a waste of time and money. Many Maine residents, who aren’t the business owners trying to make a go of it, while calling upon the government to promote their businesses, don’t want more of these people coming to the state, all for the sake of collecting more money. Any business should be geared to do their own marketing and provide a product or service good enough that “if you build it they will come.” Why should I subsidize another’s business? Who is subsidizing me? This is nothing more than an exemplification of the socialist/totalitarian society we have become.

Once again, Smith extolls the need to fund MDIFW with general taxation dollars. He even says that MDIFW should be run by “groups representing hunters, anglers, conservationists, and environmentalists.” It doesn’t take much effort to see that in other states that have done this, their fish and game departments have gone to hell in a handbasket.

I don’t understand how anyone of sound mind can encourage the operation of the fish and game department by those “conservationists and environmentalists” who have cost us millions of dollars over the years attempting to put a stop to hunting and trapping. Isn’t this a form of insanity?

The MDIFW has become overrun with “conservationists and environmentalists” and that’s one of the biggest reasons large predators have grown out of control and deer populations are shrinking to a point they’ve decided not to even bother attempting to manage deer in those areas that have lost all their deer.

Environmentalism is a planned mental illness that operates on the false pretense that “Natural Regulation” (which is an oxymoron) works better than a hands-on approach. Turning the reins of MDIFW over to the environmentalists and animal rights radicals, which is what you’ll get once the leverage of how the MDIFW is funded, is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

It might be of great interest if some who promote general taxation monies to fund the MDIFW would expend a little effort and look into what has become of other state’s fish and game departments when they lost control, turned their work over to Environmentalism and renamed their departments, departments of conservation and environment.

Granted the MDIFW needs some changes, but not in the wrong direction. Moving it more toward the demands of Environmentalism isn’t a cure unless death is what you are seeking.

Share

Maine’s Forgotten “Game Plan for Deer”

Does anybody remember? Maine had/has a deer problem. What was/is the problem? There are not enough deer statewide, and when combined with predator devastation, harsh winters (global warming isn’t helping) and grumbling began the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) figured they best do something to appease the grumblers. Thus was born Maine’s Game Plan for Deer.

The farce was devised and published in March of 2011. *Note* I would highly recommend (if you give a rat’s patootie) that you go to this link quickly and download it into your computer files for safekeeping and future reference before it disappears…again.

I wrote extensively during that time about the plan, and in those writings provided readers with a link to the Plan. Unfortunately, like with hundreds of other documents, when MDIFW rebuilt their website, which is difficult at best to navigate and impossible at times to find anything, all of the previous links became void – perhaps by design.

This morning I began to think again about this document and plan and wondered why so much time, money, and effort was put into devising this piece of propaganda. At the time I called the work a worthless document and asked if MDIFW practiced deer management as a hobby. I wrote: “The Maine Game Plan for Deer is a worthless document until a strong and united effort is undertaken. It has to be more than task force creations, meetings, talk, and rhetoric, while fractured small groups or individuals practice futility. It appears Maine has to learn how to build a coalition that brings everybody onto the same page. Until that happens the only rebuilding of any deer herds will be happenstance.”

Game management history in Maine should have taught us that the mandated 15-year management plans are nothing more than typical political bureaucratic nonsense. This is proven out because nothing ever written in these plans is followed and when game managers remove themselves and their work from those plans, their excuses are that “best available science” changes and managers have to change with those changes. Yeah, OK!

Now, we have learned that Maine’s Game Plan for Deer was another political appeasement, a worthless document designed to get the complaining idiot hunters (their perceptions) off their back. Essentially, the Plan was tossed in the garbage and disregarded. Didn’t this become evident when the pretty document was scrubbed from the MDIFW website?

And then we have the surveys that MDIFW paid ridiculous amounts of money for saying they wanted to make their management plans based on what “stakeholders” (including anti-hunters, environmentalists, and animal rights radicals) wanted and their perceptions of existing game management.

We can easily assume that all previous game management plans, including Maine’s Game Plan for Deer, became null and void after Responsive Management devised the outcome based, scientismic, Delphi Technique enhanced answers to rigged questions.

We also can only assume that the new 15-year deer management plan that calls for reducing the deer population, stopping counting game animals, and strive for hocus-pocus “healthy” deer is the result of the SURVEY! Wink-wink and Kumbaya!

What’s odd though is that spending a considerable amount of time read searching the published results of that Survey, I don’t recall any questions, concerns, or comments about “stakeholders” wanting to stop counting game, reducing game populations, and/or putting a focus on healthy deer rather than focusing on growing a deer herd that would provide better opportunities to hunt and to boost the success rate, which in turn would continue to keep interest in deer hunting stable or growing.

Or maybe the new 15-year plan is newly devised to create just the opposite because that’s what Environmentalism and animal rights perverts, saturating the department, want.

So, why do we have a department of fish and wildlife? It’s all part of the rigged system. They waste money by devising wicked and worthless documents, convincing people they have our interest at heart, and evidently, we fail miserably in not seeing the scam.

MDIFW, like all government bureaucracies, is going to do just as they damn well please. First up on that agenda is to do what is necessary to keep fake biologists and game managers employed, at least long enough to collect a pension. The art is making the people think they are doing worthwhile, commendable work is a must.

Your government at work! Nice…real nice.

Maybe we need to develop a task force to look into this.

Share

Management Design of Scarcity

In Jim Beers’ article I posted yesterday, he spoke of what he called an “ecological theory.” This ecological theory is the transformation of the role of man in this existence. He writes: “We must restore the “primacy of man” in the cosmos and recognize that man has a transcendent purpose.  Today we see how treating man as just another animal in the cosmos and rejecting the understanding of an afterlife with an all-powerful Creator leads us to far more than “astray”.  I do not see how we can reject this ecological theory or heresy by simply rejecting it and those that propound it.  If we do not accept and value the traditional mores, cultures and beliefs that have underpinned millenniums of civilizing societies how can we defend them from avid proponents of this “ecological theory” or convince others to do so?”

Contained in this ecological theory, the role of man is changed from one of dominance among species to one of equality. This is achieved through an abandonment of the Scriptures where we are specifically told that Yehwah, our Creator, gave us dominion over all the plants and animals. This new theory, one that is vehemently perpetuated by Environmentalism and in particular the animal rights movement, places man as nothing more than an equality, or less, to animals and plants and that we have no right to wield any kind of control through management and ultimately any right to consume those wild animals as a natural resource.

On the Maine Deer Hunters Facebook page (I will not recognize FB with a link), Troy Frye writes of the troubles in Maine within deer management when the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) decided to allow a record number of Any-Deer Permits (a system used for more than 20 years to control and manipulate deer populations) at a time when deer populations are far below carrying capacity and when hunter harvest remains at dismal levels.

Frye points out some statistics he has put together of the recent history of Any-Deer Permit allocation. He writes: “Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 accounted for 41,065 permits in 2016, this is 90% of the state’s (45,625) antlerless deer permits.”

(Note – For those who might be wondering, the issuance of Any-Deer Permits for 2018 reflect the same percentages. Of the record number of permits issued, 84,745, those handed out to WMDs 16. 17, 20 – 25 total 76,975 or 90.8% of the total.)

(Back to the 2016 data) We know of the 29 WMDs, 7 of those districts receive no Any-Deer Permits. That is because deer populations in those areas are so terribly low, MDIFW believes simply issuing no permits will somehow cause the population of deer to grow. It isn’t happening.

Five other WMDs received less than 100 permits each, again signifying low deer densities.

So Maine’s deer seem to be all congregated in one geographically small area.

To help understand why some are disgruntled by MDIFW’s decision to issue a record number of Any-Deer Permits in certain WMDs, we should examine the stupid logic that is used through the Environmentalist’s influence on wildlife management nationwide.

Environmentalists and animal rights organizations believe that if you protect animals (no hunting, trapping, etc.), such as wolves, grizzly bears, Canada lynx, mountain lions, bobcats, etc. somehow the population of these animals will spread to all those regions that do not currently have populations of these species. And yet, in the reverse, in Maine’s WMD’s that show signs of good deer populations, management intends to issue so many permits to kill off enough of the female deer to reduce the population overall. Evidently, the reverse logic doesn’t work in the minds of environmentalists? Or, maybe the logic of protecting to cause the spread is incorrect.

In those areas where MDIFW believes the deer population needs reducing, are the deer starving to death because of competition for habitat? I’ve not heard of such a thing.

We know that the MDIFW is heavily influenced in their deer management decisions by pressure placed on them from social interest groups. MDIFW uses what they call “social carrying capacity” meaning whatever the numbers are that people will tolerate regardless of best available science in making those management decisions. Is this what is prompting MDIFW to slash deer numbers in WMDs throughout the state that are the only havens where people can find deer to hunt and eat?

We just don’t know what MDIFW is thinking or if they even are. It makes little sense. MDIFW wants to base their decision on the fact that deer harvest has been increasing at a trickle pace since the really bad winters of 2008 and 2009, but yet the overall harvest is still far below what should be expected.

MDIFW has given up attempting to manage deer that includes using counting and numbers, probably because of their repeated failures at deer management.

It appears to me that there is really only one explanation in MDIFW’s decision to kill as many doe deer in the WMDs listed above that make up 90% of the total allotment of Any-Deer Permits – management for scarcity.

If Maine’s WMDs 16, 17 and 20 – 25 become the only areas where there are any deer, is there any concern that hunters will begin filling up the woods in those areas searching for meat for their freezers? If so, maybe that’s the goal; to make the deer population in those zones look like the rest of the state.

In this condition of modern “ecological theory,” what has been lost is the fact that hunting, fishing, trapping, and a basic consumption of resources given to us by our Creator is the only thing in existence that is natural. To promote this modern ecological theory, as has been pointed out by Jim Beers, is uncivilized.

Environmentalists control wildlife management. We can tap dance around the truth and deny it all we want but when wildlife management is being so strongly influenced that scientific/biologic decisions are given a back seat to social demands, where society has become completely brainwashed by Environmentalism, then there is no denying who is pulling the puppet strings.

Succumbing to this neo ecological theory, i.e. changing the way we approach wildlife management, is a loss of about the only remaining stronghold on the natural behavior of man. All else is uncivilized in reality – a reflection of the society of which we live where up is down, wrong is right, hate is love, etc.

Jim Beers puts it this way, “If we do not accept and value the traditional mores, cultures and beliefs that have underpinned millenniums of civilizing societies how can we defend them from avid proponents of this “ecological theory” or convince others to do so?”

If we cannot rip this ecological theory apart and convince our game managers to do the job that provides man a chance to utilize the resources God has given us, hunting, fishing, trapping and any and all consumption of resources will become a thing of the past. This is happening at breakneck speed. What can be done?

The problem is I don’t think there are enough people left who care.

THE END!

 

Share

Avoiding Accountability in Deer Management

In the recent past, I have written quite a bit about my concern for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) change of direction in their new deer management plans. Those plans seem to include a shift from bothering much about counting deer to a non-accountable waste of time concerning themselves with a general good health of game animals – and that Agenda 21 term of “sustainable” that everybody is in love with. (You can find some of my articles that cover this environmentalist-shift to game management here, here, here, here.)

V. Paul Reynolds says that MDIFW is “falling short of goals” when it comes to deer management and cites the previous 15-year plan that set as a goal a population of deer at 384,000 – cough, choke, spit, laugh. Reynolds sobering words remind us of the realities of the actual estimated deer population – “less than half that.”

Reynolds doesn’t think a management plan void of counting is worth much either. He asks, “in the end isn’t it the number of deer that we have or don’t have that is at the core of professional whitetail management?”

It has appeared to me right from the get-go that this new deer management plan is a better way to avoid responsibility and accountability when deer management goals call for 384,000 animals and the failure in that is so great less than half that number exist.

According to Reynolds, the new management plan targets a “healthy” deer population of around 210,000 by 2033. All MDIFW has to do is hope like hell their prized “Climate Change” allows them to somehow maintain the terrible number of deer now. At the rate things have gone, we can expect a deer population of around 105,000 by 2033.

In reality, I think what is reported that an assistant wildlife director said if more than a mouthful and an honest assessment tells the real story: “The goals for deer population management outlined in the updated 2017 Big Game plan are to maintain a healthy and sustainable deer population, rather than limiting a particular WMD to a hard target density objective — like in the past couple of plans. This allows for greater flexibility in management actions to adapt to changing landscapes, climate fluctuations, social issues, etc.”

Whenever any government leader/employee uses the term “flexibility” you should know by now that that means we’re all about the get taken to the cleaners with no accounting on their part. In other words, this new plan allows MDIFW to do just about anything or nothing at all, and because they have issued themselves “flexibility” they have not failed at their job – a well-defined recipe for FAILURE.

Along with this flexibility, they have ensured that there are scapegoats (the dog ate my homework) – “changing landscapes, climate fluctuations, social issues..” And the big one here is the last – “etc.” Evidently “etc” means they just fill in the blank.

Environmentalism sucks!! Its purpose and plan is to manage for scarcity so that nobody benefits in any way and the wage earner and retirement pension seeker is not held accountable in any way. Oh, America! Land of the free…loader.

The last nail is driven in the coffin and as the death of deer hunting and other game animals falls upon our society, the government agency in charge can say, we were just following the 15-year management plan.

Share

The “…devolution of environmentalism into political gaming…”

Those who have followed the devolution of environmentalism into political gaming know that pseudo-environmentalism, as it should be called, is a cult.  Its doctrines have more to do with a suppressive “new world order” than with a world order that is free and humane.  The followers of this cult must believe that it is smart to restrict human activity instead of encouraging it.  Given the vast possibilities inherent in the natural forces, I’d say that the one thing pseudo-­environmentalists got right is calling themselves green.

Green cultists follow the old tradition of peddling whatever one can get away with as solutions to problems.  In the past, those who peddled elixirs and quack remedies were responding to actual needs.  Today’s green peddlers respond to “needs” that are as phony as the remedies.  Yesterday’s charlatans had to make a living on their own.  Today’s hustlers earn a living with corporate, state, and federal money.  In time, the scientific facts that blew the game of the earlier quacks will blow theirs, too.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Committee Seeks Information from Defense Department on Impact of Environmental Litigation on Military Readiness

Share

NRDC Colluding With China to Influence U.S. Public Opinion/Politics on Environmental Issues

Share

Maine’s New Big Game Management Plan Stained With Environmentalism

*Editor’s Note* – When I ended my work on this article last evening, unfinished and unedited, I didn’t realize that I unintentionally hit the “publish” button instead of the “save draft” button. For some readers, you may have gotten a look at the unfinished work with lots of errors in it. I apologize for this mistake.

Maine wildlife authorities have concluded the Draft copy of a new 15-year big game management plan. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) likes to call the plan the 10-plan – that’s because it’s about 5 years late in coming.

Regardless, for those willing for some honest examination of the Draft Plan, can see that it is smeared with acts of Environmentalism, Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, and Scientism.

Pharmacies and doctors have seen windfall profits from the fear-mongering over Lyme disease. We’re all gonna die, ya know! And along with this preprogrammed effort to scare the hell out of anyone thinking about going outdoors, we see the call from “society” (social, socialism, communism) to reduce the deer population to save the planet. Never lose sight of the fact WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE from Lyme disease or some other manufactured “weapon of mass mental destruction.” Doing so would really upset the Global Power Structure’s plans.

Because MDIFW has taken up the cross to manage big game for healthy populations, spending less effort on anything that might reveal or expose lack of accountability, we now have to even further reduce the deer population below the dismal levels that already exist. (Note: Once again we see another firm case of the overwhelming need to KNOW deer populations in order to manage them responsibly.)

Must Lyme disease be a new disease? Oh, wait! According to some (wink-wink) Lyme disease was “discovered” (deserves another wink-wink) about 40-years ago. Others (get ready for it) say “new discoveries” (quadruple wink-winks until at least the cows have all come home) indicate that Lyme disease has been around for “15-million years.”

During a period of time of nearly 20-25 years ago, Maine wildlife biologists were estimating the deer population in excess of 300,000 and the deer management plan in place at that time stated the statewide goal was to maintain an “over-wintering” population of about 310,000.

In MDIFW’s wildest dreams, they estimate today deer population of around 200,000 animals. However, it appears that harvest rates of modern times don’t match with those of 15 years ago or longer. In other words, the number of deer harvested of late does not necessarily equate to 200,000 deer. Something less than that.

Regardless, 40 years ago, when Lyme disease was “discovered,” where was Lyme disease? Where was Lyme disease when Maine’s deer population spiked to well over 300,000? I know, I know. You’re all going to say that better diagnoses today detect the disease. Is that really an honest answer?

So why is the deer being blamed? It’s not the source of Lyme disease. It only is a blood host for the Lyme/deer tick. Why aren’t we expending necessary effort to go to the source of the disease and instead, picking on deer and determining to kill off whatever number of deer it takes to reduce Lyme disease (oh, why not! Wink-Wink) (Note: It is the aim of Environmentalism and/or animal rights perverts to end hunting. Going after the source of Lyme disease is not conducive to ending hunting, but if they can successfully reduce the deer populations to levels below the need for surplus harvest, they will have achieved their goal. You should also know that these groups couldn’t care less about your risk of contracting Lyme or any other disease.)

Ironically, or something, those Environmentalists who say we’re all gonna die because deer spread Lyme disease, will be the first in front of the microphones and television cameras demanding that all hunting must stop in order to protect a man-caused fragile deer population…while the cases of Lyme disease continue to flourish…because of better diagnostic techniques? (yes, yes! Wink-Wink)

Environmentalism = Scientism, Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, man sucks, and we’re all gonna die!

Also in this latest charade of big game management mockery (as demanded by the Legislature), once again we hear the woes of the failure of deer management.

A few years ago, a group of “stakeholders” and interested “volunteers” comprised a quasi-vigilante-style onslaught defined as an effort to address deer management issues in Maine. I wonder what they would have done through all those meetings if “Climate Change” didn’t exist or their bred-in instincts at totalitarian authority to steal away landowner rights didn’t give them subject matter?

During those meetings, the discussion eventually came around to suggesting that deer management in northern, western, and eastern Maine be essentially abandoned because the MDIFW cannot find ways to grow deer. That’s called GIVING UP! There are just too many excuses why it can’t be done. However, a great deal of actual deer management has been abandoned due to the utter nonsense being taught to wildlife biologists in factories of higher brainwashing, and increased pressure from Environmentalism to “change the way we talk about wildlife management.” And, let’s not forget the fear of lawsuits.

It is imperative that those who care about deer management in Maine understand that part of this Draft Plan calls for a “reevaluation” of deer management in northern, western, and eastern Maine to determine whether any effort to manage the deer in those regions is worthwhile. DAMN THAT CLIMATE CHANGE!! (Note: We must consider that should MDIFW abandon deer management in these regions, would the deer population then grow?)

We can blame whomever we want, however, according to the outcome-based “surveys” MDIFW conducted, the majority of Maine people think all is well on the homefront and that MDIFW is doing a marvelous job. That’s mostly because not unlike the brainwashed college students, society is just as brainwashed and they don’t even suspect anything.

It’s easy to target the wildlife biologists, but how much they are to blame is difficult to tell. Many are just simply doing what they are told. If we look at wildlife management as what it has become, none of what I write about matters because we will NEVER return an honest science-based system of wildlife biology. Instead, we will see a rise in Scientism, Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, Outcome-based management plans, etc.

There is one more issue in the Draft Deer Management Plan that needs to be looked at. The Plan calls for a reduction in deer populations in most all of southern and central Maine. These reductions, because of pressure from Environmentalists to stem Lyme disease, would put the population densities down to 15 – 20 deer per square mile, which is ample deer. Essentially, areas of central and southern Maine are what is keeping deer hunting in Maine alive. This is because there is a viable deer population there. In the north, west, and east, deer densities run as low as 2 – 5 deer per square mile and hunting activity is dropping like a rock.

If we slash the deer herd in central and southern Maine, what’s left? How will hunters react?

The Draft Plan for all Wildlife Management Districts calls for increased hunting and, “Continue to provide a diversity of opportunities for hunters to pursue deer by allowing multiple hunting techniques over a long season framework.”

This is a great example of wordsmithing. The Plan wants to “provide a diversity of opportunities.” What precisely does that mean? I suppose it means that I could buy a 10,000-acre spread in Central Maine, put nothing on it, manage the nothingness that is there and sell “opportunities” for those interested to go there and pursue rhinoceros. That would be diverse and provides an “opportunity.”

You might recall in my opposition to the wording of any proposed constitutional amendment to protect hunting, fishing, and trapping to Maine’s Constitution, each proposal used the same kind of wording – wording that would guarantee a right to an opportunity not a right to hunt, fish, and trap game. There is a difference.

However, the bottom line is that if hunting in Maine is to be a part of our future, there must be game to hunt, fish, and trap. It’s that simple.

Surveys, for what they are worth, conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have indicated that the biggest deterrent to hunting is finding or taking the time. If hunters and potential hunters now struggle to find the time, or to justify taking the time, to hunt, how much more disinterested will people be when the only parts of the state where there are ample deer to hunt are gone?

For some of us, there is a great challenge to pursue the monster buck in areas where deer densities run around 2 -5 per square mile. Most, however, want meat and don’t have the resources to spend hours and hours to get it.

And all of this discussion about the Management Plan is actually a wasted effort. This legislatively mandated management plan is nothing more than typical government bureaucratic nonsense that, once written, is set aside and little attention paid to it. If it was required that game managers followed this plan and their production was as dismal as it is, compared to the plan, many should lose their jobs.

It is an act to appease the morons in the Capital building and to placate the unsuspecting public. In some ways, perhaps a lot of ways, consider it a good thing that game managers don’t follow their own plans.

Now, if we could just do something about the spread of Environmentalism throughout society and in our school systems.

RIGHT!!

 

Share