September 18, 2019

Maine: MDIFW Moose Biologist Honored With International Award

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine — Lee Kantar, Maine’s moose biologist with the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, was honored with the Distinguished Moose Biologist Award by his peers at the 53rd North American Moose Conference last week in Carrabassett Valley, Maine.

“Maine has the most progressive and scientific moose management program in the United States, and Lee is the engine that drives that – he is most deserving of the award,” said Peter Pekins, Professor of Wildlife Ecology at the University of New Hampshire Professor and past recipient of the award.

The award was established in 1981, to honor and publicize the outstanding contribution of an individual, individuals, and/or organizations to moose management. It is not given out every year, and since its inception, recipients include those from the United States, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Norway.

“Lees work and dedication to Maines moose is exceptional. Maines moose survival study is pioneering in both its scope and numbers and has been a model for other states and provinces,” said MDIFW Commissioner Judy Camuso.

Lee was recognized for his field work which includes designing, conducting, and overseeing Maines Moose survival study, Moose aerial surveys, moose necropsies and moose captures; his research which includes nearly a dozen published manuscripts, multiple agency reports, and scores of public presentations; and his administrative work regarding Maines moose management program and moose hunt.

Lee joined the department in 2005 as the MDIFW deer biologist, and in 2007, he volunteered to include moose management as part of his role with the department. Lee oversaw the management of Maines most popular mammals, moose and deer, for five years before devoting all his focus on moose management in 2012.

Dr. Walter Jakubas, head of MDIFWs mammal group, nominated Lee for the award and stated: “Since his hire, he has transformed and built a moose management program that is arguably one of the most modern and comprehensive programs in the States…He is conducting the largest research effort with radio-collared moose in the States (over 500 collared animals in 5 years) while working cooperatively with New Hampshire and Vermont as part of a larger regional effort….He has become a pillar of moose management in the northeastern US and North America, and without question, is deserving of this honor and recognition.” Maine has over 60,000 moose, the most in the lower 48 states. Moose were plentiful in Maine during the 1600s but by the early 1900’s, moose populations in Maine had declined to an estimated 2,000 due to unregulated hunting, clearing forestland for farming and increased incidence of brainworm attributed rising deer populations. Since that time, increased protections, management and improved habitat have allowed the moose population in Maine to thrive.

Share

Maine Moose Drool

MooseDrool290There is good news coming out of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), or at least I’ll take a different road this time, with a positive approach and say that a program by MDIFW to collar moose and study what causes mortality should be a good thing. If Lee Kantar can keep the brain dead “it’s-got-to-be-global-warming”, unscientific, ambulance chasers out of his office, I have a degree of confidence he can come up with answers. What the actual questions are, I’m not sure. But, by reading some of the “moose drool” (the term use is so fitting), one might be under the impression that Maine’s moose are all dead and/or dying because Minnesota, Montana and New Hampshire say they have a moose population in decline problem.

I find it odd that in Minnesota, for instance, officials there seem to have made a conclusion, at least a decade ago, that the moose were disappearing. Without lifting a single finger to determine, scientifically – no, not the new-science, outcome-based, pseudo-science speculation garbage lazy, mindless people love to swallow up and jump on the “True Believer” bandwagon – that it was a warming planet that was the root cause of a disappearing moose herd.

New Hampshire is trying a bit of a different approach. They are willing to admit that they think their moose population is shrinking but they think it is caused by the winter tick. Fear not, though. The reason the winter tick, according to their drivel, is because of global warming.

Lee Kantar must carry out his experiments with a real scientific approach, i.e. he is actually looking for THE answer not AN answer that quietly fits into a sky-is-falling narrative promoted by the Algorites (Al Gore’s global warming cultists).

However, his task will be extremely difficult because there may not exist anyone willing to take that approach, i.e. the real scientific one. If that’s not scary enough, Mr. Kantar might find I’m his only friend.

Even some of my colleagues in the outdoor writing business are getting caught up in winter ticks and global warming when it comes to discussions about Maine’s moose. V. Paul Reynolds, typically one who recognizes predation and places it quite accurately in moose and deer discussions, penned an article recently about the need to keep a close eye on Maine moose population, and yet not once mentioned or even hinted that predators should be considered. He was willing to write about the winter ticks. In fairness, the crux of the article dealt with MDIFW’s new program of collaring and studying moose mortality.

However, winter ticks were brought into the equation when Reynolds asked Kantar about ticks and Maine’s moose. Kantar was skeptical about how severely winter ticks were affecting the moose but hopes his study might answer some questions. This was exciting. Kantar didn’t seem to reveal he had made up his mind and intended to use the study to find answers; THE or AN, we’ll have to wait and see.

George Smith, in attempting to write something about moose populations and hunting permits, winter ticks and global warming, now seems relegated to hauling in the assistance of the Algorites and the National Wildlife Federation(NWF), (basically anti hunting and anti human) who still insist they are going to use man-caused global warming to raise money for their non scientific causes, in order to help him substantiate his claim that we’re all going to die…..right after the moose do.

Smith says because New Hampshire’s moose are declining and the NWF says warming is the culprit, along with New Hampshire’s claim that it’s the winter ticks due to global warming, Maine’s moose will also disappear.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone actually asked the right questions and that Lee Kantar found THE answer…….if there is a question?

Consider a few things, if you can. With the immersion into moose drool that just seems to be oozing everywhere these days, non thinking leaves someone subjected to talking points, the majority of which have never been proven but that doesn’t stop the echo chambers from repeating it.

First consider that there are no firm answers to most questions about winter ticks. Theories abound and it is irresponsible as hell when people, and that includes fish and game officials, spend money and make major wildlife management plans based on speculative assumptions, i.e. global warming and winter ticks, i.e, abundant moose drool.

Second, we are being told that global warming is causing an increase in winter ticks which are killing moose. And yet how much of the garbage that is being spread has been proven? None. Again, speculation and assumptions. It’s part of Algorism (belief in Al Gore’s melting ice caps mythology). It’s the lazy person’s explanation for everything. Dang those ticks anyway!

Even information presented in the two articles I have linked to above, is unproven and some of it just plain doesn’t make any sense if you actually take some time to study and research about winter ticks.

It is claimed that a warming planet is what is behind what appears to be, or at least what the media wants us to believe, an increase in winter ticks and those ticks are killing moose. Repeatedly we are told that what is needed are a couple of good old snowy and cold winters to kill off the winter ticks. Nobody, evidently bothers to check. Sounds good, so I guess I’ll pass that on.

If you were to look at the life cycle of the winter tick, then perhaps you could ask some questions – like what really interrupts a tick’s life cycle – and understand that it’s not quite so cut and dry as to what will kill a winter tick, that is, enough to reduce the winter tick infestation and salvage a few more moose.

Many people have become so obsessed with global warming being the cause and effect of everything, the simple concept that too many of a species is often “self-regulated” by a reduction of numbers from disease. Simple math should tell us that the more moose that exist, the more chances tick larvae will find a winter host and survive and reproduce. But that seems to be absent from the conversation.

Maine recently announced there were at least 75,000 moose, up from the official previous count of around 30,000. So, at least double the moose and potentially double the ticks. But, it didn’t happen overnight.

Climate change does effect our ecosystems. They have since the beginning of time. Real science can give us some answers. Unproven suppositions and perpetuation of myths only achieves to further complicate an already complicated process.

Perhaps we will discover that winter ticks are the only thing negatively affecting Maine’s moose….or not. Perhaps we are in a natural cycle of climate that does offer the expansion of winter tick infestation….or not. Maybe what is happening has happened hundreds of times before……or not.

If Lee Kantar is a real scientist, with a clear, unbiased and unaffected from outside pressures kind of guy, with the objective to come up with answers that are true and not predetermined, valuable information can be obtained for the benefit of all. God knows it’s about time.

By-pass the moose drool. It might be entertaining to read but the onus is and always has been on the reader to seek the truth. By doing so, things really do seem to make a lot more sense. Try it. You might like it.

Share

Jim Slinsky, Outdoor Talk Network, Interviews Lee Kantar, MDIFW Deer Biologist

The interview below was done in June of 2011, I believe. Jim Slinsky, Outdoor Talk Network, talks with Lee Kantar, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife head deer and moose biologist, about what’s effecting Maine’s struggling deer herd. Kantar also speaks quite a bit about the aerial surveys he is doing with his department. He reveals very little about predators’ affects on deer but does say that most of what is being talked about pertaining to predators and deer are myths.

[audio: http://www.tomremington.com/audio/slinskykantar.mp3]

Share

Maine’s Deer Harvest for 2012 Tops 21,000

According to a report filed on the website of WCSH-TV in Portland, Maine, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) released preliminary estimates of the 2012 deer hunting season harvest. That estimate tops 21,000. The report states this as an 11% increase over last year’s dismal performance.

While it may be an 11% increase, an indication that there are probably a few more deer around, it still remains approximately 45% below the last ten-year high in 2002 of over 38,000.

From the report:

Biologist Lee Kantar said the increase is due in large part to last winter’s mild weather, resulting in a high survival of fawns that produced a bumper yearling crop.

This statement probably indicates that there were a lot of yearling deer taken during the hunt.

Maine has miles to go before it sleeps as far as rebuilding a destroyed deer herd, as most all of Northern Maine, Downeast and the Western Mountains remain mostly devoid of deer. Efforts at predator control are underway and with serious continued efforts at this, in about 3 years time, Maine citizens should begin seeing results from that effort and investment.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the MDIFW press release with the preliminary numbers made available. This is something Maine sportsmen have been asking for for years; simply an unofficial tally of the deer kill.

Upon finding the information, I immediately emailed Chandler Woodcock, MDIFW Commissioner, Lee Kantar, MDIFW deer biologist and Governor Paul LePage to thank them for their efforts to get this done.

Share

Quality Deer Management? Maine Needs QUANTITY Deer Management

It has taken awhile for me to finally get around to responding to George Smith’s article that appeared on GeorgeSmithMaine.com on 12/11/2012 about some sportsmen in Northern Maine looking to implement Quality Deer Management for Aroostook County. It appears they would like the help and approval of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) but are running into strong opposition. I think those same sportsmen are going to run into mostly opposition from me on this one. (Smiling)It pains me greatly to agree with MDIFW for the most part on this issue.

In reading the article, one might get the impression that Quality Deer Management is about antler restrictions. This is only one aspect of a complete program that is designed around doing what the name of the program suggests; creating a “quality” deer herd.

Not to take me wrong, as I admire the passion to make hunting better, but I did guffaw a time or two in reading that some Northern Maine deer hunters want to create a quality deer herd. The reason for my snickering is that I was talking with a former Olympic ski coach once about problems I was having sustaining a “quality” ski team, year in and year out. His response to me, again not intended to offend simply to state the obvious, “Tom, you can’t make a good tossed salad if all you have to work with is a head of lettuce!”

Before I take the time below to post information and links (I’ve done this several years in a row) let me say that I am not necessarily opposed to Quality Deer Management, although I certainly believe it has its problems. However, I’m not sure that Northern Maine even has anything that resembles a head of lettuce. I just don’t see how “quality deer management” can rebuild a deer herd.

In Smith’s article, he quotes Gerry Lavigne, former MDIFW deer biologist and now works for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, as saying:

“I am still opposed to antler point restrictions, especially in northern Maine. Selectively removing bucks will not lead to deer recovery. Improving doe and fawn survival will.”

“Increase the deer population from 2 to 10/sq. mi. and we’ll have an abundance of mature bucks again,” said the always-outspoken Lavigne. “Any other strategy is just a smokescreen. Hunters deserve better than that.”

Doe and fawn survival is key. Deer herd management is complex and I don’t pretend to be an expert on it, but during my years of writing I have attempted numerous times to seriously explain to hunters that doe to buck ratios cannot be 100 does to 1 buck. Failing to grasp this concept makes it that much harder to educate hunters on how Quality Deer Management works and what the results will be and the purpose for seeking to implement it.

As I said, not everyone is a fan of QDM. Petersen’s Hunting magazine ran an article over a year ago asking, “Is Quality Deer Management Ruining Hunting?” Check it out.

And there’s always the debate that not only can be heard in coffee shops in deer country, but get published in national magazines, that trophy hunting ruins the gene pool. Nearly 4 years ago, Newsweek Magazine ran an article, “Survival of the Weak and Scrawny.” The tragedy of this publication was the authors, not only had no idea what they were talking about, they never sought out the hoard of scientists who refuted the claims of this study. It just made for good sales and a bit of controversy.

Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary, Canada, provided me with the information to better explain what transpired during that study. If you are serious about understanding deer herd management, and as it might pertain to how selective breeding for “quality” deer might work, I strongly urge readers to follow all of these links and do a bit of studying. It’s fascinating stuff.

I also took the time to post another piece to explain about “trophy” (by definition) hunting and the results of that. In this article is a grocery list of information that I was able to compile from a host of qualified scientists who speak freely about trophy hunting, genes and breeding; all related information.

I have yet to find a wildlife scientist, even a new-science scientist, who would agree that implementing Quality Deer Management would aid in rebuilding a deer herd. I don’t think Maine is ready for “quality” deer management. What is really needed is “quantity” deer management. Let’s put our efforts and resources together to figure out how to increase the deer fawn recruitment and THEN work on quality.

Note: Pro Quality Deer Management sportsmen, even then, may run into opposition from wildlife managers.

Share

Lee Kantar: “Talk of a Declining Deer Herd is Old News”

I have used as an analogy many times over the years a story of my nephew, when at the age of perhaps 4 years, got me to laughing. I was visiting my brother one day and when I arrived he was struggling to get his son to eat his lunch. My brother and I retired to the living but only after he had told his son that he was to stay in the kitchen and eat his lunch and only then could he be free to play.

After about 5 minutes, my nephew walked into the living room and said to his dad, “Dad, I ate all my lunch….but don’t go look!”

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) deer biologist, Lee Kantar, told Mark Latti in an interview published in the Portland Press Herald yesterday, that concerning the state’s whitetail deer population, “(It’s) 150,000-200,000, but things are definitely towards the higher end (and) talk of a ‘declining’ deer herd is old news. We are trending up.”

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!!!

There are two issues worth discussing here. First, it is easy to say that the number of deer in Maine is “trending up” when there really is no other direction to go in. And from that perspective one could not be talking of a continuing decline in the population. However, calling it old news is pushing it just a bit. Sportsmen still want answers and action.

Secondly, Latti’s column is about game population estimates. He writes about black bears, turkey, woodcock, moose and grouse. According to what is written in the article, Maine has 31,000 black bears, 60,000 turkeys and 76,000 moose. The deer population is somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 but Kantar believes the actual number to be more towards the 200,000.

Why isn’t there a specific number for the deer? Maine announced it was going to spend $100,000 to aerial survey the whitetail deer population and while they were at it would do some moose counting as well. So, where’s the results of the deer count?

It seems it didn’t take very long to whip out a number for moose, being that everyone was making comments about how many there were and perhaps so many that the winter tick infestation is very high. Has all the complaining and grumbling about the deer herd scared the biologists away from publishing a more exact count of deer or are they trying to hide from sportsmen something?

They flew with helicopters to count moose and have determined there are 76,000 of them. They flew with helicopters to count deer and have determined that there are somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 deer and maybe it’s closer to 200,000. Or maybe there’s 50,000 or 350,000? Why don’t we know?

If the deer population in Maine is trending upwards, which I believe it is in places, it comes as the result of nothing MDIFW has done. The article linked to attributes the increases to, “After severe winters in 2008 and ’09, Maine’s deer herd was blessed with a relatively short winter in 2010, and then two mild winters in 2011 and ’12.” Lee Kantar takes credit for helping that increase by reducing the number of “Any-Deer” permits for a couple of years. This probably did help grow the population in zones where the herd isn’t in serious danger. In those zones where deer are in the most threat, there are no “Any-Deer” permits issued.

I would think that if MDIFW can state that there are 76,000 moose, then I think they can do a better job of informing sportsmen of what the real deer population is rather than a +/- 25% guess.

Share

Maine’s F&G Biologist Kantar Will Oversee Fate of Moose, Leave Deer Behind (Literally and Figuratively)

*Scroll Down for an Update and a Correction*

Last week George Smith, former head of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine now turned blogger/journalist/reporter, wrote on his blog that as part of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) “restructuring”, Commissioner Woodcock, with the approval of Governor Paul LePage, decided that MDIFW needed a separate head deer biologist and a separate head moose biologist. Currently Lee Kantar has held the position as both deer and moose head biologist.

In addition to Smith’s report of the restructuring, he stated that Kantar was given his choice by the Commissioner, of whether he wanted to be head deer or head moose biologist.

Lee Kantar, the agency’s deer biologist, “assumed responsibility for moose as a favor to the department,” said Chandler, who also announced that he offered Kantar his choice of species, and he took moose.

Favor? Hmmm, interesting perspective.

In a separate report filed by John Holyoke of the Bangor Daily News, we read about comments made by Lee Kantar, efforts by MDIFW to conduct moose and deer aerial count surveys and some data that seems to support earlier claims that Maine’s moose herd is at least triple what hunters and wildlife enthusiast have been told for many years now.

While the first part of Holyoke’s report attempts to gloss over the dismal deer harvest report by stating:

While Kantar hasn’t crunched all the numbers from the 2011 hunting season, he expects that more than 18,000 deer were taken by hunters. That’s a significant increase from preseason projections, which put the number under 17,000.

The numbers are out and the actual harvest number stands at 18,170 deer taken. However, somehow trying to make the 2011 deer hunt a success by spinning the facts to make it look like there’s a “significant increase” because what could have been didn’t happen, isn’t getting the job done.

Aside from that, Holyoke’s report along with data from Kantar, tells us Maine may have as many as 100,000 moose, all the while for the past decade we have been told that Maine has 29,000 moose and that moose lottery permits have been allotted during that time to maintain a moose herd of 29,000.

George Smith reported in one of his earlier blogs and Holyoke brings it up in his report, that former moose biologist Kim Morris recently stated that Maine probably has around 60,000 – 90,000 moose. However, Kantar is sure there are less than that but far more than 29,000.

Without fully analyzing the new data that has been collected, Kantar feels fairly confident that an estimate of 75,000 moose is accurate.

His new data comes from last year and this year doing helicopter aerial surveys to count moose.

It should be extremely disturbing to everyone that Maine has been saying the state has 29,000 moose and now they “feels fairly confident” that there are 75,000. This isn’t chump change. Who has been heading up the moose management in Maine up to this point?

Also, is this statement a misprint or an attempt at humor?

“One of my biggest concerns is, we have a lot of moose in certain areas, and then we have a lot of areas where we have a lot of moose,”

Assuming it is a stab at humor and bears a resemblance to some truth, what Kantar is saying is Maine has a lot of moose. He then turns around and tells Holyoke that just because we have three times the number of moose the state has been managing for, doesn’t mean we can increase permits so hunters can take more moose. This is followed by this ridiculous comment:

“We realize, more than anything, that moose are valued economically for viewing as well as hunting opportunity as well as being on the landscape and just the aesthetic of moose,” Kantar said. “We balance all those things. That’s our job.”

Balance, balance, balance. I wonder if wildlife managers anymore have any idea what they are doing except hiding behind some kind of shroud that requires invoking that magical word “balance”, as though balance was some kind nirvana achieved only by those most enlightened?

Are we to pretend to be stupid and say nothing when for years we have been told that 29,000 moose in Maine is a good number, perhaps even “balanced”, by using their own jargon? And then, within weeks we are told there are 75,000 moose but that’s not enough to provide more hunting opportunities and Maine is “balanc[ing] all those things”. This makes little sense and stinks of agenda-driven wildlife management.

Mr. Kantar does not make MDIFW policy but this kind of crap sandwich issued by our fish and game department is the stuff that drives hunters away in disgust. The state is trying to figure out why nobody from out of state wants to come to Maine to hunt deer and they act clueless. What are they going to do when the residents stop buying licenses? And here’s an even bigger question somebody at IFW ought to answer. Whose money and efforts set the stage to provide the resources necessary that Maine now has 75,000 moose? Here’s a hint for all you at MDIFW. It wasn’t the environmentalist clowns and animal rights freaks or even those who use are resources and contribute nothing to them. Now that we’ve fronted the money and made our investment, you want to send us away telling us these aren’t our moose.

I don’t have to be a biologist to understand that 75,000 moose, the majority of them living in the same regions of Northern Maine where the deer herd has been run into the ground, isn’t a very promising prospect when those same moose are in direct competition with the deer.

As long as MDIFW and the governor of the State of Maine insists that 75,000 moose or more is good for moose watching and helps to “balance” the landscape and provide increased “aesthetic of moose”, there will never be a rebuilt deer herd because I don’t think they know how to do it.

Here’s the key question: If Lee Kantar was the head deer biologist and the deer herd is in the poorest condition it has been in, perhaps in the last century, should the Commissioner have given him the choice to move on to another species?

If Maine has been managing its deer herd in the same fashion as stated above, “economically for viewing as well as hunting opportunity as well as being on the landscape and just the aesthetic(s)”, and we now have a deer herd that may never return in 2/3rds of the state, what then are we to expect of the condition of our moose herd a decade from now?

*Update*: March 14, 2012, 1:45 p.m.

If you look below at the comments left concerning this article, you will notice a comment left by John Holyoke, author of the Bangor Daily News article linked to in this report. Mr. Holyoke states: “John Holyoke here: A clarification: The passage attributed to Lee contained a mistake (on my part). It should have said, ‘We have a lot of moose in certain areas, and then we have a lot of areas where we have hardly any moose.'”

It is important to make this clarification because of my reference in the article wondering if Mr. Kantar was making an attempt at humor. One would assume after reading Mr. Holyoke’s comment, there was a misprint or typo and not an attempt at humor. This eases the thoughts that coming at a time of serious discussions about the condition of both Maine’s deer and moose herds, the head biologist was not attempting to pass off the seriousness through ill-timed humor.

This is not a case of humor, however, this does not change the fact that Mr. Kantar did state that he is comfortable with an estimate of 75,000 moose in the state of Maine.

Tom Remington

Share

Maine Hunters Funding Efforts to Provide Moose Watching For Tourists

George Smith, former executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, and current free-lance writer who covers many of Maine’s outdoor issues, filed a report on his blog yesterday about activities that took place at the meeting of the Joint Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Part of Smith’s article included a report on moose by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW), Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist.

Kantar claimed that Maine would be leading the nation in moose research and management and described new research initiatives, including surveys using Maine Forest Service helicopters and pilots………………..

“We’ve gone a long way… but it’s limited,” acknowledged Kantar. When asked by Rep. Jane Eberle how many moose we have, Kantar said he couldn’t answer that question definitively. But he did provide an estimate of 75,000 moose, a very high number that will embolden those calling for more hunting permits. Kantar warned against that, noting the importance of balancing all demands for moose from tourism to hunting.

There are a couple things to note in this information. If Kantar says he “estimates” 75,000, historically all wildlife biologists low ball estimates. So how many moose does Maine really have? 100,000? Regardless, at the rate the state is going the moose herd will soon outnumber the deer herd.

Which brings me to another point to be made. Yesterday I reported on efforts by the State of Maine to make the Moose Lottery more fair. In that article I suggested the idea of a mocked down version of the current “Any-Deer Permit” system, the only deer management policy the state employs. The question now becomes one of asking if a continued deer hunt in a shrinking deer herd is good enough for deer management, shouldn’t a short moose hunting season be good enough for moose management?

But the issue I wanted to point out is what is wrong with wildlife management today. Mr. Kantar states that Maine needs to be careful about killing more moose because it might mess with the “balancing all demands for moose from tourism to…..” Where is the science in that? Why are my license fees being used to provide moose watching opportunities while limiting my opportunities to hunt the game species I’m investing in? Maine is trying to generate tax revenue through tourism out of the wallets of the outdoor sportsmen. Where will it all end? It all makes me very ill!

Also consider how Maine’s game management, if you want to call it that, has changed over the years. What once was a deer hunting mecca, the Great North Woods of Maine, has now become a paradise for providing moose for tourists to look at and putting video cameras in bear dens, how cute, which no doubt will result in more demands by environmentalists and animal rights advocates to stop hunting and killing black bears and moose.

Below is a “Metamorphosis Part I and Part II” of a Maine Deer Biologist as compiled by contributor Richard Paradis of Maine. Maybe, just maybe, this closer resembles reality than tongue in cheek and also consider the prophetic claims, laced with environmental truths of today.

Share