April 28, 2017

When Man Wasn’t Around Animals Survived

*Editor’s Note* – A New Hampshire town wants to better manage wildlife on town property – just in excess of 2,500 acres. It is believed too many coyotes are reducing the deer population below numbers desired. As is often the case, animal lovers seem to think managing is more cruel than the savagery of letting “Nature” do it alone. Ignorance driven by emotion.

“Why fool with Mother Nature?” asked Elliot, adding that he’s read that trapping is considered inhumane. “What happened years ago when we weren’t around? They (the animals) all survived.”<<<Read More>>>

Utah: Biologist Back With Family After Accident

*Editor’s Query* – Of course I have questions. Reading the information in this article, we see where a biologist is “accidentally” injected with a tranquiler (dart) intended for a yearling cub black bear – weighing how much? And how much did the biologist who got “accidentally” injected weigh?

The article doesn’t tell us the dosage the biologist received, only that they made note of that dosage to give to medical personnel. Are we to assume the dosage the biologist received was no more – perhaps less – than what was intended for the bear? If so, is there somehow a greater danger to the health of a man than that of the bear, or is this really not that newsworthy of an item?

I don’t know the procedures being used here but in some research methods, once the data is collected the animals are given and antidote that will counter the tranquilizer effects and soon the animal is going about his business. 

“Quick action and training are the reasons a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources biologist is resting comfortably at home with his family today.

The biologist, a 20-year veteran with the DWR, was released March 15 from the Utah Valley Regional Medical Center. He was hospitalized after accidently being injected with a tranquilizer meant for a bear.”<<<Read More>>>

Can We Stop the “Social Justice” of Wildlife Management?

Over the past few years, I have made many an utterance condemning the idiotic “social justice” approach to wildlife management. Perhaps if deer, bear, moose, loons, piping plovers, and all other animals, could sit down to a cup of coffee and “tell us how they really feel.” The job of providing for their welfare would be a bit easier…or not. Our human society, at present, believes that providing things for free – by utilizing another person’s money – is the correct thing to do, along with forcing idealistic lifestyles onto others. Evidently wildlife management is not exempt.

Animals can’t tell us how they feel, what they want, where they prefer to live and what their basic enjoyments in life are. Because we can’t communicate with animals, as with man, we are supposed to use science to figure this all out. There once was a day when it was acknowledged that in order to understand animals and care for their existence, the tried and proven principle of honest, scientific method and approach was an honorable challenge.

Today it seems that this scientific approach to wildlife management has been replaced with a form of social justice, the result of which has created a form of scientific injustice.

Social Justice can be defined as, “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.” With each enforcement of social justice, all hopes at individuality and even self-determination are forever lost.

Social Justice is a Leftist term of idealism. Environmentalism and Agenda 21, both glorified perpetuations of social justice, has put a stranglehold on future individualism and aides in the destruction of God-given rights. Agenda 21, pretending to be a guideline to “save the planet,” was the infrastructure needed by those seeking social justice. It has been woven into the very fabric of American life. Every movement we make, we run face to face with “sustainable development” – the ultimate destroyer of self determination and individualism – perhaps even life itself.

Agenda 21, therefore, has become a dominant theme in wildlife management, even if never spoken. It seems, whether by design or happenstance, no decisions within wildlife management departments, crafted to care for our wildlife, can be made unless first they seek the wishes of society. With a fully propagandized public, surely wildlife management has become a form of social justice. To continue this thought process, understand that “Climate Change” (note it’s in capitals) is all a part of Environmentalism, Agenda 21 Sustainable Development and Social Justice. They didn’t just independently appear one day.

I’m not here to debate the proclamation that all wildlife belongs to all the people. That’s not what this is about. Whatever happened to when wildlife departments, their foundations built on a firm understanding of the responsibilities before them, devised scientific management plans to achieve the goals that they knew would satisfy a majority of the public, and stand behind those decisions with strong, honest and real science to support it? Today, regardless of science, if you have enough money and holler loud enough, you’ll get what you want. The system is gamed.

So where are we? Can or will we ever return to rational, scientific wildlife management? Probably not, however, before the doom arrives, we might witness some degree of a push-back. It might even be a substantial one.

To be forthcoming, please understand that I do not subscribe to the idea that there are two political systems diametrically opposed to one another. The paradigm is manufactured, the result of which is vividly on display presently coming off the November presidential election. It all about propagandized perceptions.

Because the paradigm is fake, doesn’t mean that the perceptions of the people are fake as well. They honestly believe what they say and do…or at least they feel convinced enough to say and do some pretty far out things. As Yehushua stated in the last moments of his earthly life, “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”

Some are calling the events and fallout of the election a sudden fall of the Left and a rapid rise of the Right. Reading “Wretchard’s”, Richard Fernandez’s recent column, is a great example of how some are seeing things.

The premise being presented here is that the Left pushed and pushed and reached a point where they considered themselves to be in the catbird’s seat controlling everything of importance within their progressive lifestyle. All of a sudden, the Left came crashing down as the great wall of the Right was rapidly built around Donald Trump. As Fernandez describes it, “In an instant what was formerly yielding pudding becomes incredibly resistant like liquid armor.  The Left hits a wall.  Progressives, perplexed at this sudden change in resistance doubles down.  But this makes the liquid armor even more impenetrable and they double down some more. Unable to understand i[f] they naturally  blame conspiracies.”

So, what is this? Is any of this real? I’ll let you answer that question, however, there is everything real about perceptions. Perceptions are what guide us. It’s the forming of those perceptions that have, historically, been an extremely dangerous thing.

In the dozen years or so that I have covered the emotional politics of wolves, this paradigm of Left vs. Right (perhaps better recognized as Rep. vs. Dem. or better yet, Liberal vs. Conservative) has run its course of ups and downs. Often I wrote of how the Left (Environmentalists, Animal Rights advocates, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Social Justice warriors) always pushes for more; exercising their perceived power of controlling all things wolf, ignoring any and all opposition to their determination at achieving social justice for an animal regardless the cost. To what extreme will the Right go, if allowed?

The “pudding,” at times, runs up against “liquid armor.” In the Left’s comfort and incorrect perceptions of power, they went too far. The perceptions of the Left caused them to feel as though things have come crashing done on them. The Right began their push back. They are feeling power, some control. And so it goes. There is no ending.

I don’t believe for one minute that the progressive lifestyle is dead. Too many people love their immoral lifestyles, made legitimate in the minds of Leftists claiming a “changing world,” where all things desired must be achieved void of any thought toward morality and decency. But they do not see their world that way. What is dead is the lifestyle of tolerance, anchored by a truly moral foundation.

It matters not whether you and I want to accept the manufactured internal war of Left and Right. The reality is that a very large population of people believe (perceive) in “their side” and we are receiving hints that some are ready to fight to the death for it. What a very huge mistake that would be, especially when an honest examination of what one is fighting for is undertaken.

Historically, it has been a common existence of what appears to be ups and downs, or maybe Rights and Lefts, as each “side” maneuvers their pawns on a chess board in hopes of gaining more power than the other. Is any of it real, at least beyond the ends of their noses?

The perception may be that the Left has been in control too long. Their idealism has been forced onto the American people, for a time long enough that those on the Right believe they have “fought against” the “pudding” and have created “liquid armor.”

What then will happen to wildlife management by Social Justice, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and Climate Change?

I’m offering little hope that wildlife management will ever return to what it should be, but can I help you to better understand?

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is in the process of keeping their cash flow solvent, by complying with the blackmail practices of the Federal Government, to devise game management plans for deer, moose, turkey and bear. In all preliminary readings of what to expect in these revised management plans, there is a common and readily repeated theme of making decisions within the plan based on social tolerances. In this case the social tolerances are the result of strong-arm indoctrination of Social Justice, through Environmentalism, Agenda 21 and Climate Change.

With this mind manipulation running its course and having achieved giant strides in promoting its agenda, there is little hope, short of a massive flow of liquid armor.

Perhaps another example of blind ignorance as to what has befallen us, can be seen in Maine’s effort to lay out tens of thousands of dollars to hire a company to conduct a survey of the Department and their practices. And because it’s a “well-known” and “well-respected” company, are we supposed to blindly take their propaganda, bought and paid for by MDIFW, as the gospel?

All questions in this survey are general in nature, with little or no specifics, including background data that might prompt the questions. The multiple choice of answers never include all the answers – only the ones the company wants you to choose from – often leaving respondents frustrated. Did I mention the survey was bought and paid for by MDIFW? (Learn about the Delphi Technique)

But, I don’t want to create my own distraction. Now that MDIFW has THEIR survey results, all, of course, favorable to MDIFW, that will become their answer, along with Climate Change, for everything. We’ve already seen it. It’s nauseating once you understand it.

I have searched for any kind of legislation that Maine might have that forces MDIFW to consider social tolerances within their wildlife management plans. I have found nothing. One then can only conclude that the choice to implement social tolerances into scientific processes, is that of a state government so deeply indoctrinated in the idealism of Social Justice, they believe it is the correct thing to do. How do you counter that? Isn’t this same sort of Social Justice prevalent at all levels of government, throughout all departments?

We have seen in this most recent presidential election one the biggest, if not the biggest swings in political idealism. Whether real or imagined, if this political push-back, i.e. the liquid armor, has and will have actual destructive powers to dismantle, at least to some degree, the progressive lifestyle running rampant in this nation, remains to be seen. Will any of this backlash and power gained, trickle down into state’s fish and game departments, like Maine’s, that will spoil the “pudding” of the progressives who have taken over wildlife management? One can only hope. Or none of this is real.

At some point in time, many aspects of wildlife management, based on Romance Biology and VooDoo Science, will run their course. Some people will see. Some won’t, nor do they want to. A push-back will ensue. To what strength remains to be seen. I doubt any will go noticed. The beast is too big with not enough people left who care enough to do anything about it. They love their Kool-Aid. Drink it and like it.

But always remember that democracy, as we have been brainwashed to believe is such a wonderful thing, is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Perhaps at one meal time there may be two sheep and one wolf.

 

 

In Maine, Too Many Game Animals or Not Enough Game Animals? And None of It Matters

And the beat goes on! Drums keep pounding rhythm to my brain!

Ah, yes! The committee in Maine is at work attempting to put onto paper all the management plans for deer, moose, bear and turkey. Members on the committee seem to be saying there are too many of certain kinds of game animals, while others are saying there isn’t enough. Perhaps the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the committee should go on Facebook and ask followers what they think…and don’t forget the environmentalists and animal rights perverts. Oh, wait. That’s right. They already have some of them on the committee helping to “steer” efforts in the right way. Perhaps asking for input from Black Lives Matter?

The other day I wrote about how I thought the entire effort was a waste of time – jumping through bureaucratic hoops for the sole purpose of getting money. These plans are seldom followed or even referred to during their 15-year life expectancy…well, except when it’s convenient. I wonder if all the committee members will win a trophy when the task is complete? At least a certificate of participation?

Just as a reminder, some of us have been doing a lot of hollering that something ought to be done about growing a deer herd. The result? Increased doe permits because Maine had one relatively mild winter. I guess this is now the major driving force toward deer management.

Some of us have suggested efforts to reduce the bear populations that have been determined to be a major factor in reduced deer existence. The result? Crickets, except listening to what the guides have to say and doing as they are told. Now I understand that in the proposed bear management plan, MDIFW is going to spend time and money to “educate” people how to “coexist” with bears. No, seriously. I’m not the only person out there over the age of 60. When was the last time, in your life span, that we had to teach people how to “coexist” with bears? I thought so.

I’ve banged my head against cement walls attempting to get somebody to listen to the idea that Maine simply has too many moose and that’s why winter ticks have taken over the job of managing the moose herd. The result? Reduced numbers of moose permits and discussion about stopping any kind of deer management in Northern Maine and focus only on moose. Let’s continue breeding and growing ticks shall we? Hmmm. This must have been the suggestion of the guides and camp owners. It’s probably easier as well. Instead of having to listen to questions about why the deer hunting sucks, MDIFW biologists can just say, “We don’t manage deer there anymore. But the moose hunting is good. You just need to hire a guide, pay a few thousand dollars, and if you’re lucky enough to draw a permit, oh boy!” Maybe the change would make for better reality TV programming. Let’s get drunk and go catch somebody illegally looking at a moose….or something.

I really should stop all this talk!

But, for some reason, and meaning no offense to the members of the committee, members seem to think this time will be different. If we can just get into these game management plans all those things that make us feel good, this time it will be different. This time MDIFW will follow the plan. This time.

Last time the plan didn’t get followed very good and so MDIFW had to stop mid-plan and devise a crock of bologna called Maine’s Game Plan for Deer.  We can expect MDIFW to follow these new game management plans as closely as they did the Maine’s Game Plan for Deer. I wonder what followers of Facebook thought about that. Did MDIFW get any “likes” for that? Did MDIFW go and ask members of the Humane Society of the United States if it was alright to go through the motions so as to get the sportsmen off their backs? Go ask Katie!

Or maybe cough up another few hundred thousand dollars to hire a “research” company to come up with what you want to hear – like sportsmen are so much in love with MDIFW.

I’ll repeat it one more time, just for the insanity of it: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and each time expecting a different result. Isn’t this really bureaucratic insanity at its finest?

And yes, I do understand that by my repeated writing, asking the same questions, pointing out the same nonsense, etc. and expecting that something will change, is complete insanity.

I guess I really do fit in!

Maine’s Seemingly Endless Debate on Sunday Hunting

I’ll give George Smith, a writer and sportsman’s activist from Maine, credit for sticking with something he believes in. It appears he is just about the last survivor to advocate for Sunday Hunting in Maine. Smith says we will never hunt on Sundays in Maine, and he probably is correct. As a matter of fact, I’ll take that claim one step further and say the days that we actually will be able to hunt, are numbered. With the continued, unchecked, onslaught by animal rights groups and environmentalists, combined with the influx of newly indoctrinated wildlife biologists, and the myriad of other environmental movements nationwide, hunting will soon be a thing of the past – perhaps in my lifetime.

There are several issues about Sunday Hunting that appear to be stumbling blocks. Let’s address a few.

Religious reasons. I’m going to guess this is another example of the pitfalls of socialistic democracy, in which two wolves and a sheep are discussing what’s for lunch. If the majority of Mainers, who go to church, do so on Sunday and they view that day as somehow “holier” than the others, their socio-democratic power trumps everybody else.

There is a bit more to this as we have seen in the past. I can’t seem to find a link to the story but if my memory isn’t completely shot, I recall, if not in Maine, somewhere, where some who choose to recognize Saturdays as the sabbath, proposed legislation that would allow them to hunt on Sundays. Of course that was shot down. I have serious doubts that very many people would actually not hunt on Sundays because it’s their sabbath. Hypocrisy abounds in that area.

Another aspect would be the fallout that may or may not create less land access. Some land owners have threatened to post their land if Sunday hunting is permitted. Whether and how much that would actually happen, I don’t know. I do know that in some states where much land is posted and/or land is considered closed without owner’s permission, access to hunting lands is difficult at best and in some cases, with the exception of public lands, hunters have to pay, sometimes hefty amounts, to “lease” a portion of private land. Unless you’ve been relegated to that, I don’t think you really want to go there.

The other issue in Sunday hunting is seldom seriously discussed. In Maine, as in many states, hunting is used as a means of “managing” (control) the population of all game species. For deer hunting, the state also uses a permit system that regulates and controls deer populations within Wildlife Management Districts. The bottom line is this: wildlife regulators decide how many of which species should be harvested each year and do what is necessary to achieve those goals…usually.

If we look at deer hunting as one example, game managers have an idea of how many deer will need to be harvested, by different methods, utilizing permits, along with length of season and all other factors that effect the harvest. Some of those factors are not controllable. One that is, is the length of season. In my lifetime, I have seen the deer hunting season in Maine shortened to barely two weeks – the need being a lack of deer and protecting the herd to remain at safe sustainable levels.

So what if Maine added, not just 3 or 4 more days to the annual deer hunt (you can also use this to extrapolate out to all other game species, i.e. turkey, grouse, bear, moose, etc.) but that those added days were on the weekends? We know that the busiest hunting days during the deer season are Saturdays. If Sundays were added, how many more net hunters would there be? How many more hunters would skip a working day in order to hunt on Sundays? How great would hunter participation become?

We have had the claim beaten into our brains for years now that Maine and her economy are suffering because hunters won’t hunt in Maine because there is no Sunday hunting. If that is true, then the question has to be asked, how many more hunters will now hunt Maine, especially on Sundays?

This all adds up to one large question. If Sunday hunting for deer is allowed, how many more deer will be killed? If there is an increase, what is the extent of that increase and will it force the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to shorten the season in order to mitigate the losses of deer due to harvest? If Maine was overrun with deer, this would not be a problem. With or without Sunday hunting, if the state was overrun with deer, the season would be extended and/or the limits may increase to more than one deer per season. Too few deer, and the results are reversed.

I personally, have no interest in angering the landowners. Whether or not a Sunday hunting move would seriously effect land access, is a guess. I will state that I believe in the short term, there will be a knee-jerk reaction to Sunday hunting and land will be posted that wasn’t before. How that trend evolves will really depend on the realities of what takes place on that land, that is different from the present, that would cause more or a continuation of reduced land access.

If an added Sunday hunt resulted in a shortened season, that would mean more hunters in the woods at any one time. I don’t like that idea at all. Safety must also be a concern. Maine has an outstanding track record when it comes to hunter and public safety during the hunting seasons.

I think the bottom line should be deer management. Yes, Maine should consider ways of maximizing the positive influences and effects of hunting seasons, but the bottom line should always remain, what is best for the deer herd and landowner relations.

A final issue that is seldom discussed or is presented in the wrong way, in my opinion, is the rights of landowners. I get a sense from reading Smith’s article about Sunday hunting that every effort to implement some form of Sunday hunting in Maine is a serious loss for hunters and Maine’s community, without consideration of protecting the rights of landowners first and foremost.

I am first a property rights advocate and then a hunter. Yes, I am saddened with each passing year that I see more and more land posted to access, but that is and should be their right. But I also believe that those landowners who post their land, should limit their involvement in hunting issues that involve land access. In other words, there is little credibility in anyone with posted land stating that they didn’t believe a Sunday hunt would have any real effect on land access. Hello?

As Maine citizens, we should be glad the majority of people are looking out for the rights of the landowners. We hear of how wildlife management, which includes hunting and trapping, is beneficial to the landowner. I couldn’t agree more, which makes me tend to emphasize that all the effort that has been expended attempting to promote Sunday hunting, could better be spent educating the landowner to the advantages of the North American Model for Wildlife Management, i.e. managing for surplus harvest, and that leaving their land open has it’s benefits. Landowners should also be taught how they can control the access to their land to meet their wishes and still reap the benefits of wildlife management – hunting and trapping.

Perhaps someday, Maine will have Sunday hunting, but without it, as things currently stand, giving the drums a rest would probably be in the best interest of hunting, while shifting the effort to increasing better landowner relationships.

Maine’s Moose Biologist: Epiphany or Slip of the Tongue?

*Editor’s Note* – Actually, I didn’t think I would live long enough to read the below quip found in the Bangor Daily News. I spent about five minutes checking myself, and actually walked outside, found a stranger walking down the street and asked them if they thought I was dead. She didn’t think so.

But, I am curious. Is this statement an epiphany or a slip of the tongue? For surely no modern day wildlife biologists would actually resort to a basic fundamental in understanding animal management, i.e. that when you crowd together too many of any animal, the result is disease. Maybe I got the man all wrong. Maybe under all that “we must manage wildlife according to social demands,” he retains a bit of old fashioned “codgerism.” Therefore, I may have convinced myself his statement is a slip of the tongue.

Not that I think this will in anyway assist in keeping the current moose study going in a direction of the normal scientific process and not be kidnapped by global warming, it does provide just a glimmer of hope.

“And while the moose herd in the western part of the state is struggling to deal with the effect of winter ticks, Kantar pointed out that the problem was likely influenced the abundance of moose on the landscape to begin with.

“We know that the more moose that you have over time, has likely created a scenario where winter ticks have done really well,” Kantar said.  “Our winter tick population has grown with our moose population through the decades. This is not a one-year thing where all of a sudden, one year, something’s happened.””<<<Read More>>>

Question for readers: Is the picture shown below:

A. The result of too many winter ticks?

B. The result of global warming?

C. The result of a hybrid mix due to too many moose?

D. Photoshopping?

E. I don’t get it?

cowmoose

Sensible Statement About Predators

“The issue is not wolves, it’s the combination of wolves, grizzly bears, black bears and cougars,” Bob Jamieson, a systems ecologist and environmental consultant, told the paper. “The prey species can’t handle the combined impact of those four animals,” he said. “A lot of people [blame] habitat problems because they don’t want [to] wrap their head around the predator issue.”<<<Read More>>>

Wildlife’s Modern Management: Thousands of Trail Cameras

It doesn’t get any poorer than this. Wisconsin has decided, along with NASA (?) to litter the forests and fields with 6,000 trail cameras, make the photos accessible to the WORLD for identification, so that the fish and wildlife department can better manage wildlife.

“Photos will be uploaded to a crowd-sourcing website; viewers will be asked to view them and try to identify the animals in them.”

“…should provide the best idea yet of the size of animal populations and their movements.”

“We’re hoping to provide data to solve some of these (population) controversies.”
“The pictures will be uploaded to the crowd-sourcing Zooniverse website, where people from around the world help researchers with their projects.”

“The site’s visitors can view the photos and identify what they think the animal is with the help of a detailed field guide.”

“The DNR plans to enter the data into models…”
“Wisconsin’s data won’t be perfect since people with no scientific training who may have never been to Wisconsin or the United States will be making species identification.”
This is the New Science Paradigm – changing the way we discuss wildlife management. There is basically zero science involved in any of this. What could possibly go right?

Maine’s Mangled Moose Management

Most every morning I get up and somewhere along the line I end up asking myself why I see things differently than others. I don’t know half the time if it’s a curse or a blessing.

Once I had confidence that when Maine finished their moose study program, they would be able to come up with sensible, scientific conclusions that would help in making decisions about how to responsibly and scientifically take care of the state’s moose herd. The confidence has ebbed to something just short of doubtfulness, but there is still a lot of time left to get things right. Let’s hope.

Yesterday, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MIDFW), in their Twitter Updates, provided a link to “Searching for Maine’s Moose Calves.” In that report, the author wrote: “In late April, wildlife biologists begin to closely examine the daily locations of each adult cow to determine whether or not they have localized into one small area.  A cow that localizes into a small area at this point of the spring usually means that she has given birth to a calf or calves.  Once this determination has been made, biologists use tracking (or telemetry) equipment to visit this site when she is present to obtain a visual on her, and hopefully a calf or two at her side.”

It is also written that “it is important to understand the productivity of the population to guide management decisions.”

What is not written is an explanation as to how long it takes from when biologists think they have discovered that moose have “localized into one small area,” and when calving occurs. We also are not told how long it takes after the so-called localization of the moose before biologists get to an area to “obtain a visual” on the cow moose, in which they “hopefully” will find a calf or two. (Note – Vaginal implants are now available that will signal researchers the exact moment a birth has occurred.)

It appears that Maine’s focus, also heavily trumped up by the Media and their directive to promote “climate change,” i.e. global warming, is on death of moose by ticks – and of course the growth of ticks, they repeat, is caused by global warming. This focus deflects attention away from other causes of death and/or the cause of a dwindling moose population.

We know that predators attack and kill newly born moose calves, from within minutes to hours of birth. Predators such as bear, coyote/wolf, bobcat and lynx, learn where moose “localize.” They have also learned where deer go to fawn. These same predators can smell the birth of moose and deer and beeline for a fresh, hot meal.

Which brings me to my question of concern. Biologists may or may not assume an adult cow moose is pregnant. The cow moose that they have collared should give them that information. Moose without collars, it’s a guess. Can a biologist, under these techniques actually obtain accurate data to know the moose calf survival rate within the first week, or before biologists have made their way into the woods in hopes to find the collared moose with a calf or two?

Recently we learned that in studies of coyote behavior and predation on deer, that data being collected was not necessarily giving accurate conclusions because there was no way to determine how many fawns were preyed upon and killed immediately after birth, up until the time biologists could fit the small deer with collars. Once a collar is attached, tracking the animal is certainly easier. Without a collar, not so much. Are we possibly seeing the same thing with Maine and New Hampshire’s moose study? And their deer study? If so, will this give them inaccurate and/or misleading information causing bad decisions to be made?

According to information provided by George Smith in the Bangor Daily News, “In the winters of 2014 and 2015, 73% and 60% of Maine’s collared moose calves, respectively, died from ticks.” Do we know how many of the newly born moose calves died from other causes between birth and getting collared?

It’s important when conducting studies to examine completely, and with open scientific minds, to understand all that is going on. Anything short of that is a waste of time and resources. Yes, it’s important to try to understand winter ticks and their effects on moose, but if that is what the entire focus is going to be on, then all that might be accomplished is to better understand the tick. However, other information in Smith’s report doesn’t offer much hope for a good result.

There was one encouraging thing I read in this report, that the AP quoted one New Hampshire biologist who said, “As our moose numbers decline, the ticks will decline.” I’ve harped on that subject for quite a long time now. Maybe some are beginning to listen?

But, don’t get too excited. Biologists, along with the help of the Media, continue to brow-beat people over the effects of a fake “global warming.” It also shows that, like parrots, it is ignorantly repeated that a warming climate exacerbates the winter tick population. Instead of doing some research to learn about the winter tick and how weather and climate effect it, it’s much easier to just “rinse and repeat” the same mouthful of garbage forced into it.

In the meantime, Maine has decided that it’s more important to keep growing more and more moose…well, at least until someone figures it out: “If we just took the (dead moose) results of last year, we would have concerns. And we do have concerns, but it’s going to take some time.” 

Even though it has finally been suggested that winter ticks will not go away, substantially, until the moose population is reduced enough to effect the necessary change. The way I see it, Maine can dither, pretending they can grow enough moose to make money from selling hunting permits and keep the moose gawkers happy, or they can decide to manage a healthy moose herd. One way or another, the moose herd will be reduced. Either disease and ticks will kill them or MDIFW could call for a drastic reduction in the moose herd, not by reducing moose hunting permits, but by increasing them – perhaps doubling and tripling – maybe set a goal to reduce the herd to one-half, then open a season for all Maine residents until the quota is obtained. Of course it would be helpful if Maine had a firm grip on what the population is now, along with the perpetuating tick epidemic, then they could more easily derive a target population, relatively tick free, while at the same time feeding the large predators, which in turns grows their numbers too high.

And, environmentalist keep repeating the lie that the North American Model of Wildlife Management doesn’t work anymore. The further away from the Model we get, the more serious problems arise.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

KnowMoose

 

GPS Radio Collars Tracking Maine Deer – WHY?

“In use since 1950s, Maine’s deer allocation system has worked very successfully; however, with a changing climate, changing landscapes, and perhaps, missing data for the 2 extremes of our winter weather – the very mild and the very severe – it was time for the WSI system to be re-evaluated. Kyle Ravana, the lead MDIFW deer biologist, recently initiated a 5-yr study to conduct deer population monitoring using GPS satellite collar technology to track survival and mortality trends in Maine’s antlerless deer – i.e. does and fawns.

The Goals of the project are to:

1) Reevaluate the correlation between WSI and WMR for white-tailed deer

2) Assess seasonal survival rates for the adult female (?1.5 years) and fawn segments of the population

3) Assess cause-specific mortality of our adult female and fawn populations

4) Reassess the current winter severity index and try to identify a new, and more simplistic metric” <<<Read More>>>

It’s not so much that I was born a skeptic and struggle to find “good” in things that are loaded with bad, it’s just that I’m given few reasons to be optimistic about deer management (game management) in Maine. I also do not see putting on blinders, in order to only see the good, and feel good, as an honest means of building for a better tomorrow.

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has, of late, repeated the claim that the deer herd in Southern and Central Maine has recovered to a point a 59% increase in Any-Deer Permits (ADP) has been issued in order to reduce deer populations to levels determined by the public. If it is a fact that MDIFW is basing the determination of how many ADPs to issue for the following Fall deer hunt, almost completely on the Winter Severity Index (WSI) for one winter, no wonder the state, overall, struggles to grow a deer herd.

Now MDIFW is in the beginning stages of conducting a deer study – the goals of which are listed above. What I find of interest is the statement before the listing of the goals, claiming that MDIFW’s use of the WSI since the 1950s “has worked very successfully,” and this if immediately followed by a “however.”

The usual scapegoat of “climate change” and “changing landscapes” (wink, wink) leads the list of why there’s no deer but now we see a “perhaps.” This “perhaps” is saying that the previous two “extreme” winters had “missing data?” Can that be? Why is there missing data? Maybe we should radio-collar snow flakes? I hate pulling the logic card, because in today’s society and particularly in the Romance Biology and Voodoo Environmentalism entrenched in a mindless society, such nonsense as rational “thinking” often stands in the way of fulfilling narratives. I find it irresponsible, if there was missing data from the two previous “extreme” winters, enough so that this is worthy of consideration in a very expensive deer study program, to jerk one’s knee and increase ADPs 59%, while claiming the deer population in certain areas needs reducing. How do they honestly know this? Can they see this on their computer screen? And if that is the claim, what is it they are seeing, or not seeing, if there is “missing data?”

MDIFW now claims they are going to collar a bunch of deer in “one” Wildlife Management District- WMD 17. “With approximately 20 deer per square mile and a good variation of winter severities, habitats range from hard and soft wood stands, logging operations, agricultural lands; with some urban forest on the fringes of small towns and cities like Newport, Bangor and Skowhegan.”

Again, shouldn’t we ask WHY? Why WMD 17? So what if it has all those things stated above. I want to know if WMD 17 is representative of areas where deer aren’t growing. Or is this insurance that any results will fit the desired outcome? Screw the logic, again, but shouldn’t we be more interested in what’s killing the deer in places where the deer are being killed? This tells me MDIFW doesn’t want to know and/or they have already made up their minds. Hell, what do I know. I’m just a freak who can’t see things the same as other people. None of this makes me “feel good.”

And, once again, we return to the same point I brought up yesterday. Why spend the resources to collect any of this data, when MDIFW makes decisions to manage deer based on what the Environmentalist tell them? With a prominent member of the Humane Society of the United States sitting on a committee that will help decide bear management practices, a person who recently, through referendum, tried to ban bear hunting and trapping, and during the same time span sued the State of Maine; and, a group of people wanting to make more money conducting moose watching tours tells the MDIFW how many moose permits to allocate in their WMD; and, surveys and public meetings from the public at large being used as the major factor in determining game species populations; and, Maine Guides dictating to MDIFW how to run their hunting season in order for them to maximize profits, and there is little reason to think anything other than fish and game management is going to hell in a hand-basket…quickly.

But, by all means, DON’T GO LOOK!