Patrick Murphy will deliver some great news tomorrow to the sportsmen of Maine. A survey of Maine voters conducted by Murphy’s company, Pan Atlantic SMS Group of Portland, found that 46.7 percent support a ban on hunting bears with bait and dogs and trapping bears, 48.1 percent oppose the ban, and 5.3 are undecided.<<<Read More>>>
Hal Blood recalls how he used to snowmobile at the north end of Moosehead Lake and see deer by the thousands. Now he sees only a few hundred.
And where Blood, a registered Maine Guide, ice fishes on state conservation land near Jackman at the northwestern corner of Maine, the deer are simply gone, he said.
“I used to see deer lying up in the ridges. That whole Moose River valley 25 years ago was unbelievable. But there aren’t any deer there any more,” Blood said.<<<Read More>>>
The usual suspects, those lust-after wolf perverts at the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project and Friends of the Clearwater, plan to do what they do best and sue the State of Idaho believing they are protecting the Canada lynx. These three groups will get what they want and probably more. My advice to Idaho is to just sit down and work out a plan that will essentially stop just about all trapping in lynx habitat. Going to court is a winless battle and a waste of money.
Gasp! I’m sure I will hear from the trappers and the haters of the environmentalist greedy pigs who lust more for money than saving any kind of wildlife, wanting to know why I am saying this. Just look at what happened in Maine. And where is Maine now in their trapping issues and how it pertains to protecting the Canada lynx? It is just surprising that Idaho has gotten away without making changes in their trapping regulations that are believed to help protect the lynx.
First, readers should understand that the Canada lynx, like the gray wolf, like the polar bear and God only knows how many other species romance, back-seat biologists cry out to protect, are not in any danger of being threatened, endangered, or extirpated. But in this day and age of new-science scientist and romance biologists, barking like underfed canines themselves, demanding “new understandings” and a “shift in paradigms” is there any wonder science and reality have absolutely nothing anymore to do with wildlife management. It’s about sick and often perverted dreams of “coexisting” with nasty animals. Best Available Science has become best romantic model.
So, then, what is it about? Mostly it’s about ignorance and what we see is the result of years of planned brainwashing. Is there any other explanation for human behavior that is……well, not human?
The real travesty in all of this is that either there is no real intent to protect the Canada lynx or the ignorance, the result of an inability to think beyond the next lawsuit, cannot fathom that while these environmentalist groups (and by God please let’s stop calling them “conservationists.” They just are not that at all.) wrongly believe that ecosystems would “balance” themselves if man would butt out, they themselves butt in like man does to change what is naturally happening. Does it make any sense? Of course not.
The cry is for wolves to be forced back into places they once lived a hundred and more years ago, with no consideration of the changes to the landscape in 100 years, while disregarding history. The perverse belief that wolves are magical and will create this fabricated “trophic cascade” of Nirvanic spender simply by existing will make everything a miracle or two, like the Candy Man can.
With the absence of critical thinking, it appears none of these shallow thinkers comprehends what competes with the Canada lynx and places it in greater danger of being run out of or killed off in Idaho. Because of the inbred hatred of the existence of the human species, they believe it is only humans that cause wildlife problems. Irrational thoughts of balanced wildlife proportions prevents them from existing in reality and therefore no thought is given to the fact that the wolves they long to protect and protect and protect some more, until everyone has 1 or 12 living in their back yard, kills far more Canada lynx than does a handful of trappers and yet the focus becomes the outrage that three lynx were incidentally captured in traps in the past two years. Two lynx were released unharmed and a third was shot by a trapper thinking the animal was a bobcat.
The “new understanding” and the “paradigm shifts” perpetuated by new-science scientism is this: Man is evil. Get rid of man and ecosystems will flourish and be in balance. However, the radicals can interfere in the management of all wildlife providing it is done their way.
There is no escape. Maine went to court over Canada lynx and the trappers lost; so did the lynx. The trappers always lose. But Maine had a way out. The Courts gave them a way out. Maine operates under a consent agreement, which is probably what Idaho will end up under. The judge in the Maine case said the terms of the consent agreement would remain in affect until such time that the state obtains an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). That was over 5 years ago and Maine has failed miserably in not pushing the USFWS for a permit. Such a permit would stop these kinds of lawsuits but bear in mind that the USFWS, an agency riddled with new-science scientists and balance of nature perverts, is going to place such ridiculous restrictions on trapping in order to get a permit, that the restrictions essentially end trapping.
As a good friend recently stated, it’s impossible to fight against a rigged system. The entire wildlife management industry is simply one small part of a corrupt and rigged system, enabled by “True Believers” and useful idiots with zero knowledge or understanding that they fight for all those things that are against them. Does that make any sense?
If it was suggested that we protect all predators and all animals at all costs and begin killing off the only problem these sick people think exists – humans, that they would do it? Do they not see this is precisely what they are asking for? Do they not realize that they are humans too? Do these same people believe the lie of protecting a desert tortoise is so valuable it is worth the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one man and his family? The potential exists here for something more costly.
It’s a rigged system and the system is so large, few can see it.
Part of the argument the promoters of the anti bearing hunting referendum that will be before Maine voters in November is that baiting bears, to lure them into a shooting area, habituates bears to human conditions and trains bears to become reliant on man-provided food sources. Neither condition holds any merit.
The majority of those who oppose hunting bears, and in particular the use of bait, probably have never bear hunted or been involved with any kind of bear baiting stations. Therefore, one has to wonder where they gathered their information about bears. Nothing is more reliable for information than what comes from hunters and trappers with the experience and knowledge to completely understand the effort, tactics and strategies behind baiting bears.
In December of 2007, Bear Hunting Magazine published an article written by Bernie Barringer. This is what he had to say about baiting bears in competition with natural foods:
Where I live in Minnesota, the annual numbers of bears harvested can be directly linked to the quality and availability of the mast crop. And when we talk mast crop in Minnesota, we are primarily talking acorns and to a lesser extent hazelnuts.
Since there is no way to truly overcome the power of the acorn, we must simply be patient and wait it out. The bears will be back, we must just work hard to be ready for them.
As much as some would like to project their human emotions, i.e. their own lust for Dunkin’Donuts, candy, pastries and all junk food, it just is not a bear’s first choice in cuisine. So long as there is the presence of the natural food supply, the power of the acorn will spare the life of many bears who choose not to fill up on bait food.
Warning! This video contains BS, unproven theories and oddly enough a bit of hope that New Hampshire moose biologists are approaching their jobs with the right attitude. I know. Sorry. I lost my mind for a minute.
New Hampshire is complaining about as much as a 40% drop in moose numbers “in some places” as it says in this PBS video, but doesn’t tell us the truth of what that means. As difficult as it was for the makers of this film to have to hear the New Hampshire biologist say their primary focus right now on moose mortality is the tick, it inevitably had to come back to global warming, even to the point of one man seeding signatures for a petition to urge the President to do something about carbon dioxide.
It appears obvious those in this video no little about the winter moose tick. While researchers can determine that ticks led to the death of moose, I believe they are just going on the assumption from what they have been fed for information that global warming is causing an increase in ticks. Warmer temperatures and snow, it says in this video plays into the hands of the ticks. But does it?
However, N.H. bios, it is said in the video, are going to allow science to determine what’s going on. Really? I hope so because it would be a first.
In the meantime, Maine is also collaring moose and tracking them in hopes of learning more about their moose, however, biologists there say the moose herd is doing well. In Minnesota, researchers are still saying they don’t know why moose are disappearing there and from last reports I have had they still refuse to consider a very large wolf population as a seriously contributing factor.
Oh, well. So long as these agencies keep getting money to research and never find solutions that would end the need for research, what else are we expecting for an outcome?
“It’s important to understand that this antibear hunting initiative does not come from Maine citizens. Not even remotely. Although a very small handful of Maine antis are involved, the initiative is entirely the effort of HSUS. Last March, working with a Washington, D.C. consultant, they created a website called “Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting.” Although a disclaimer on the site’s homepage reads, “Paid for with regulated funds by the committee of Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, PO Box 15367, Portland, Maine,” in reality not one Maine person was involved. The campaign finance report reveals that in actuality, 99% of the funds came from HSUS. The site claims to have raised $85,000, but the report shows only $881 has been contributed by anyone other than HSUS.
This tactic of creating false sites, used by activists and corporations to create the illusion of grassroots support for their agenda, is sarcastically called “Astroturf” by the electronic community.”<<<Read More>>>
Oh my! It must be contagious. This morning I posted a featured story of how, no matter how many times someone has to explain a point to a newspaper editor, he/she just don’t get it and as such we can conclude that there is little reason to trust media as a source of intelligent, trustworthy information.
But here we go again. From a Maine television station website, a photo, with caption, appears in a short article on how Mainers can purchase lifetime hunting and fishing licenses.
Take note of the caption – “Maine’s deer population is bouncing back after several tough winters.” What does that mean and what is the editor attempting to say? Or maybe the editor just “don’t get it” and isn’t trying to say anything.
Assuming the editor is trying to make a point, one that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has tried to run with for marketing purposes, that Maine’s deer herd is better than it was after two bad, back-to-back winters in 2008 and 2009, I don’t think two bad winters qualifies as several tough winters, when the three prior to the present one were pretty easy on deer. Perhaps the editor meant to say that the herd is recovering, or at least had been before this winter, after about 3 relatively mild winters. After all, MDIFW was even willing to admit that their hoped-for global warming is about the only thing that aided in any kind of deer recovery.
I would suppose that an editor who “got it” and had knowledge, or at least the time to put into the necessary effort, wouldn’t have made this mistake but then again, we are only human……right? That’s what it is, right?
In V. Paul Reynolds’ latest outdoor article, he tells of his discovery of what was left of an old log cabin in Maine’s Aroostock County in the DeBouillie area. Through research he finds out, through a nephew of the cabin’s owner, that the cabin used to be the winter abode of trapper Walter Bolstridge:
The cabin was a trapper’s winter digs. And the trapper, Walter Bolstridge, was my friend’s uncle. According to Floyd his Uncle Walter would hire a bush plane to fly him and his gear into the roadless DeBoullie area in October. He would stay and trap. In March he would come out with his furs in time to make the Annual Town Meeting. Imagine that! What a special breed of man he must have been.
By the way, Uncle Walter may still hold the record for having trapped the largest Otter ever recorded. He got his name in the newspaper. The Maine Fish and Game Commissioner at the time, George J. Stoble, said that the critter, which Bolstridge trapped on the Fish River, was a world’s record otter.
Well, with a lot of help from a friend, who did some of his own research, this is what he found about Walter Bolstridge’s world record otter:
Recently the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has been attempting to, what appears to be, set the stage for a future announcement of a deer herd that got whacked pretty hard this winter. Several media outlets and outdoor writers have taken a turn at helping to explain just how bad the winter has been. The latest of these attempts is from Terry Karkos of the Sun Journal.
Perhaps as telling as anything in this article is the very last sentence: “The deer population has been rebounding since then due to warmer winters.” (“since” meaning rebounding from the back to back severe winters of 2008 and 2009.) While this is not presented in the article as being a quote from anyone at MDIFW, it may be one of the reasons that nothing has been done since 2008 and 2009 to mitigate the losses when the next severe winter hits….which is now. (This is where everyone in unison says, “But there’s nothing we can do about the weather, and, and, and there’s no habitat.”)
Evidently I am not the only one who sees that the only reason that the deer herd was able to “rebound” from 2008 and 2009 is because of a handful of relatively mild winters, affectionately and conveniently described as “global warming.”
Karkos, provides information others have not. He states that MDIFW claims that before the start of the 2013 deer hunting season there where a guesstimate of 203,000 deer statewide. Prior to the start of the deer season, Kyle Ravana, the new deer guru, estimated a harvest of nearly 26,000 deer. We have no idea what the harvest was that ended last December as it seems Maine is the only state that takes 4 or 5 or 6 or whatever, months to count and do simple math.
If hunters took anywhere near the 26,000 deer, that would have left about 177,000 deer. The article states that Ravana is estimating a 12% winter kill. That leaves less than 156,000 deer. It seems to me that I recall the deer management plan that is due to expire this year, called from building the total state deer herd to around 325,000 animals. Oooooops!
I guess about all we can say about this is damn that loss of habitat and where is Al Gore when you really need him?