July 22, 2019

Predator Prey Relationships For the Making

To go along with the age old saying that statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, the same is evident when it comes to predator/prey relationships. Simply pick the “expert” advice and opinions from those who have theories and “suggestions” that, when cherry-picked appropriately, will neatly fit into an agenda-driven narrative, and you have an instant predator/prey relationship that works for you.

Recently I was reading what is really a very ignorantly compiled bit of broad-brushed nonsense about how coyote control doesn’t work (for the purpose of providing enough deer for hunting). Void of any specific information of just how any sort of coyote control was, is, or might be implemented (it is crucial in attempting to make determinations that result in such claims as “don’t work”) to make the statement that coyote control doesn’t work is dishonest at best.

Not to belabor the issue of whether or not coyote control works or doesn’t work, perhaps missing from the writer’s obvious hatred for those who choose to hunt and eat natural food, is the simple fact that no example of whether coyote control works, or is even needed, is ever considered before, during, or after ranting on about a call for protection of large predators as though it is something that should never be done and by not doing it everything lives in perfect harmony. What nonsense. And it’s so tiring to be subjected to the same nonsense repeatedly.

This morning I was reading a Ph.D. college thesis where a person chose to study the predator/prey relationship between coyotes and whitetail deer in the Chicago area. The Abstract tells us a few very important things. First, that coyotes were the cause of 77.8% of whitetail deer fawn mortality. Second, that there are so many coyotes and deer in this study area that habitats unavoidably overlap, and three, coyote seem to prefer to prey mostly on fawn deer and not adult deer.

It would be ridiculous to make any kind of suggestion about whether coyote control would work or not work in this situation or for the reason anyone might suggest coyote control. As far as hunting goes, if there are this many deer, what coyotes do to only the deer herd is probably immaterial. There may be other collateral damage that is not being considered.

Another example of why broad-brushed accusations and conclusions are ignorant is the fact that an agenda-driven person might use this thesis to prove that coyotes only prey on fawn deer. In this case, because of an overblown deer population and the fact that coyotes, like all large predators, are opportunistic hunters, i.e. that they simply kill and eat the most easily attained prey. In this case, it is generally easier to take down a fawn deer than an adult deer.

In a different scenario, one that could very easily be found on the Maine landscape, where in much of the state there is a definite scarcity of deer and an abundance of coyotes, a hungry coyote or pack of coyotes can and do take down the biggest and healthiest of adult deer.

To claim predator control doesn’t work, based on some hyped up theory about reproductive behavior response, reveals a person’s desire to promote their own ideology at the expense of denying others the opportunity to promote surplus game management for consumptive use, a use that has been around since the beginning of time and this uncalled for totalitarian action coming at a time when people are in quest of natural, more healthy, food.

The writer who claims that predator control doesn’t work, was pointing a finger at how Maine manages its deer herd which includes a degree of coyote control. Again, void of specificity and an understanding of how, when, and where predator control would be effective, the author chooses to wrongfully claim that control doesn’t work.

In Maine’s case, much of the coyote control takes place during winter, in deer wintering areas, where coyotes often make those areas blood baths. Whether there’s any so-called reproductive behavioral response in coyotes to run out and have more pups to replace those taken during control actions, matters little. It is known and understood that any effective control must be ongoing and targeted, thus the reason the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) implements the coyote control.

The foundation of the call for coyote control in Maine is based upon the fact that, unlike the Chicago region, much of Maine has a very scarce deer population. Common sense, often lacking these days, should tell us that deer venison on the table is of a higher value to the consumer than a nasty, disease carrying wild dog. I, like many others, would like to improve our odds of filling our freezers for the winter, and thus we call for targeted coyote control in deer wintering areas in order to assist in the management of a few more deer. I would like to take the opportunity to say that for many in Maine, deer meat is an essential to providing sustenance. In addition, I would like to be able to choose to hunt deer, bear, and moose as a healthy alternative to store-bought meat.

If Maine had, statewide, the same deer density as is found in portions of Central Maine, coyote mortality on deer would mostly go unnoticed. Such is not the case.

Because we live in a post normal existence, where science is about predetermined outcomes that fit agendas and drive narratives, anyone can pick and choose theories, perspectives, and suggestions to support any claim they wish. In this case: Coyote control doesn’t work.

In the same vein, I can claim that coyote control does work when it is applied scientifically in those regions where it becomes necessary to sustain a deer population.

Share

Maine: New Law One Step Closer to All-Out Ban on Wildlife Feeding

LD 1818, a bill that is supported (and written by) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), gives authority to the commissioner of MDIFW to limit and/or stop the feeding of deer, bear, moose, and wild turkey, if the commissioner “has reason to believe that the type or location of feed may create a public safety hazard or may have a detrimental effect on deer, bear, moose and wild turkey…”

Hiding behind the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease, LD 1818, goes too far, in my opinion, in granting authority to the commissioner to exercise personal judgement based on their own perspective (a weighted measure) to limit or stop wildlife feeding. LD 1818 was presented as an emergency measure. Unfortunately, the idea of giving the commissioner authority to stop feeding wildlife outside of the presence of Chronic Wasting Disease, does not meet any standards of necessary emergency ruling. This one got away from the legislators…or did it?

It is no secret that the MDIFW has fought against the feeding of wildlife, particularly deer. This newly enacted bill now gives authority to the commissioner to do just that based on the commissioner’s perspective of what constitutes a “public safety hazard.”

Playing around with laws and authority in hopes of preventing or limiting the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease is one thing, but giving a commissioner pretty much Carte Blanche authority to make such determinations exceeds the boundaries of democratic checks and balances as well as a call for “emergency” establishment of law.

Commissioners come and commissioners go and with each successive commissioner, they bring with them political agendas and ideology that may be out of step with the wishes of the majority.

Share

Deer Baiting Should Be Used Like Bear Baiting

George Smith in the Bangor Daily News, posted testimony from Rep. Paul Stearns arguing in favor of a bill that would allow for deer baiting. It appears not many people are in favor of such.

Stearns gives several reasons baiting of deer should be allowed, the most of which I disagree with. I have voiced opinion in the past that it seems ridiculous that it is legal to grow a crop specifically for deer to eat and then, while you can’t directly hunt “over” that crop you can hunt “near” it.

Maine allows for baiting of bear. The reason is that it is believed that baiting bear increases the success rate of harvesting a bear. This, at the current bear management strategy, is a desirable thing as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has too many bears and management wants numbers reduced. This should be understandable but that is not always the case.

Does Maine have too many deer? Not by a long shot. However, there are some places in Maine that do have far too many deer. Many of these places do not get hunted and in some cases won’t get hunted for various reasons. It would seem that in such cases, allowing baiting of deer, to draw them to a shooting zone, would be an appropriate use of the tactic. Isn’t this what so-called “sharp shooters” do when hired to cull deer?

It makes sense that if the MDIFW retains as a management tool the authority to allow bear baiting, then shouldn’t they also retain the authority to allow deer baiting, or any other species, when the demands of responsible control and management of a species is necessary?

Share

Maine: 2019 Moose Lottery Results

For those interested, the results of the 2019 Maine Moose Lottery are available to view online. Select the letter corresponding to the beginning letter of the last name that applied for a permit and view results.

Share

Why Did Maine Issue 1,275 Antlerless Permits in 2018 in Regions of No Deer?

It was heavily questioned last season when biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) issued a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) while the overall state’s deer herd is abysmal in some places. Yes, the bulk of the deer population is in Central and Southern Maine where winters are milder and large predators are less hungry and aggressive. And that’s where the bulk of the permits are issued. I get it!

I understand the desire of MDIFW biologists to better control the swelling deer populations (if in fact they are) in these regions, but what has puzzled me is last year’s allocation of ADPs in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) in the Northwest sector of the state, specifically WMDs 7, 12, and 13.

Last year Maine biologists allotted ADPs to these three WMDs totaling 1,275 – 400, 400, and 475 permits respectively. Why? I’ve hunted these regions for my entire life and while I’m willing to admit that in my advancing years, I don’t cover the ground I used to but how much age and experience compensates for lack of geographical discovery, I’m not sure. I can honestly assess that from my perspective there hasn’t been any descent deer hunting in these three zones for quite some time…and NOTHING has changed in quite some time.

So, why did MDIFW issue 1,275 ADPs last season?

While that number, spread out over three zones, may not seem like a large number of permits, it is when you consider what percentage of ADPs issued is represented in the overall deer population in those three zones.

In the new proposal of ADP allocations, MDIFW is suggesting reducing those three zone’s ADP issuance to ZERO! Shame on the MDIFW and the Advisory Council for issuing the 1,275 for last season.

But the damage may have already been done.

It appears that MDIFW’s goal is to reduce the deer population in the state to absolute minimums for “social” reasons and to carry out the long term goals of Environmentalism to manage for scarcity and NOT manage for surplus harvest to feed the people.

I wonder what the New Science Romance Biologists will suggest to kill unwanted deer after biologists and managers have driven the hunters from the state due to poor hunting conditions and animal rights groups and environmentalists finally get their way?

If they are waiting on Climate Change to do their managing for them, they might want to rethink that strategy. According to their own Climate Change nonsense, as the climate in Maine warms, the “northern fringe” of deer habitat will recede further north. This means habitat more conducive to less climate mortality – i.e. severe winters. Then what? With moose gone, having retreated further north to a cooler climate (chuckle, chuckle) there will be less competition for food and habitat. Then what?

What a joke.

Maybe it’s not so easy making these management decisions from the confines of a four-walled office space. I dunno. Does the Advisory Council ever go out in the woods? Who are they listening to?

It’s a crap shoot!

Share

Maine’s So-Called “Red Flag” Gun Bill Proposals

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019, Maine’s Legislative Subcommittee, Criminal Justice and Public Safety, will discuss 5 so-called “red flag” gun control bills. Here they are, including my comments, with links so readers can go read the proposals instead of listening to the B.S. always associated with controversial law proposals.

LD 379 – An act to protect children by requiring the safe storage of loaded firearms.

As will all bill proposals the title often is misleading or leaves out tons of important information. This proposal is of no exception.

It’s a terrible bill and will do very little, if anything, to protect a child. The proposal, as written, should be an embarrassment to whoever is responsible for crafting it. It includes all of these very gray areas that leave decisions about determining whether a person is in violation of law up to someone’s perspective and whether or not it can be “perceived” to perhaps cause a safety issue.

For example, it reads that a person is guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm if: “The person knows or REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW that a child is LIKELY to gain access to the loaded firearm without the permission…..” (emphasis added)

The majority of the bill is utter nonsense that does nothing to protect children and everything to UNREASONABLY prohibit the exercise of a person’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The only part of this bill that should perhaps be considered is punishment for any adult who stupidly leaves a loaded gun laying around unattended.

LD 533 – An act to eliminate the statutory duty to retreat and affirm the right of self defense.

Such a bill proposal would not be necessary if there was actually a constitutional right or a natural right to self defense. States that have similar laws, sometimes called “castle doctrines” have all sorts of trouble with this law, mainly because, once again, the courts evidently can’t or don’t want to make a determination from evidence obtained whether a person was justified in killing or causing bodily harm to someone attacking, threatening, etc.

LD 810 – An act that would require background checks for all private firearm sales or transfers except family members.

Another bill that is of utter nonsense. This is a blatant and 100% disregard of a person’s right to keep and bear arms and a right to buy and sell one’s property as they see fit. Any person who owns a firearm should be able to sell that firearm to anyone they wish. What a person does with a firearm after purchasing that firearm, is not the responsibility of the seller.

This requirement will do absolutely nothing to stop anyone wishing to commit a violent crime. There are laws against committing violent crimes and those laws do nothing to stop a criminal or a person with criminal intent. Add this proposal to all the others that are nothing more than a total disregard and in disrespect of the Second Amendment and a person’s unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

LD 1099 – An act to reduce suicides and violent crimes by requiring a 72-hour waiting period after the sale of a firearm.

No where in the Second Amendment or for any other “right” guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is there a 72-hour waiting period in order to exercise that right. Such a requirement does not reduce suicides or prevent violent crimes. This is nothing more than totalitarians forcing their desired way of life onto others.

LD 1569 – An act to prohibit untraceable and undetectable firearms.

LD 1569 is hogwash!! In the proposal it states that the Legislature determines that untraceable and undetectable firearms pose a “danger to the residents of the state.” The question should be, in what way are they a danger? Guns don’t and never have been responsible for killing anyone or causing them harm. There is ALWAYS somebody on the other end of a gun that does the act. That person, if their intent is to harm or kill someone, is a mentally deranged person – made that way by a perverse, immoral society. What are we doing about that? Oh, I thought so.

Banning guns that do not contain a traceable serial number and/or are made from a material that cannot be detected by metal detectors does nothing to alter the mental deficiency of anyone bent on killing or harming other people.

This proposal will only enhance the already unlawful act of firearm registration.

There are a couple of comments I wish to add to this entire slate of totalitarian gun proposals. The first is that there has never been any discussion or bill proposals that would address why a person or group of persons are of the mindset to harm other people. This will never happen because it would interfere with the immoral, decadent lifestyles these totalitarians want to live. They like it and don’t want to lose it.

Secondly, in some of these proposals there are exceptions to the prohibition of gun rights handed out to licensed firearm dealers and law enforcement personnel, including some private security guards. I want to know why the legislators think that law enforcement personnel and licensed gun dealers are above committing violent crimes against the citizenry? We know cops will gun down innocent people all in the line of duty. Should we then, if we want to be a society that measures and restricts every act of freedom and liberty, be giving carte blanche to law enforcement and licensed gun dealers who are equally susceptible to carrying out violent crimes as the next person?

I am shocked at the ignorance on display in the written words of these gun control bills. It is a reflection of the poor and manipulated “education” (brainwashing) taking place in our institutions and within society as a whole. All that is left is doom. We happily dig our own graves.

Hang on!

Share

Beware: World’s Moose “Experts” to Descend Upon Maine

According to the Bangor Daily News, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is playing host to a bunch of self-proclaimed (?) (or at least proclaimed by the BDN) moose experts from around the world. One has to wonder what kind of scientismic Romance Biology will be spread throughout the echo chambers. There’s one thing about scientism; the ignorant, which most often includes the “experts” don’t know what’s truth and what is fiction.

The BDN brags that the 75 to 100 “experts,” “…will include experts with decades of experience in moose management and research.” I wonder how many of these “experts” promote Climate Change as the main cause of dwindling moose populations in many areas of the world? Most can’t, or won’t make the correlation that with a world population of wolves and other protected large predators, the moose population is in trouble. Nothing to see here. Please move on. We have more Climate Change information to lie about.

And how many of these “experts” believe that it is also Climate Change that is causing the infestation of winter ticks, now found to be a leading cause of moose mortality in Maine?

This group of “moose experts” will get together and will be reported by the press as something remarkable. Scientism at work with the science of moose – one lies and another swears to it.

But wait! There’s more. There will be an open-to-the-public question and answer session where you can ask such profound questions as: “How much longer before we are all gonna die from Climate Change?” And, “Do the moose have any hope of survival as long as evil hunters kill moose and contribute to global warming by farting while in the woods?”

The “public” is as ignorant about moose as those who promote the lies. The media echo chambers simply repeat the nonsense and then they show up at these meetings impressing everyone in attendance with their vast knowledge of propagandized fairy tales.

Yessiree boy! And I wonder how much this event is costing the MDIFW to put on? Looks like we’ll be in for another round of license fee hikes to cover the propaganda shows and spread of scientism.

Oh, to be such a downer. Sorry, I just can’t stop exposing the truth about all this malarky.

And where is this forum going to be held where gobs of people can attend? You guessed it. Out in the middle of nowhere at Sugarloaf Mountain Ski Resort. Perhaps one of the six people who attend will be asking about Climate Change.

Share

SAM’s Compromise Gun Bill That Isn’t a Compromise That is a Compromise

Nonsense is coming from David Trahan in a notice sent to Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine members that although he is working on a compromise to a proposed “Red Flag” gun control bill that will determine whether somebody ought to be denied access to guns because of someone else’s perspectives on their behavior, he is not compromising our rights given in the Second Amendment. The bill is question is LD 1312.

In his notice sent to members, Trahan says that he has been working with Governor Mills administration to “…determine whether there was a way we could improve Maine law to better identify individuals in crisis and honor our individual liberties as it relates to due process and the constitution.”

Perhaps the best way to “improve” Maine’s law in regards to making a determination as to whether a person is in “crisis” is to stop pretending to act like a god. Whether a person is in “crisis” becomes a value-weighted determination based upon somebody’s perception determined by perverted, post-normal societal values. What could possibly go wrong. When somebody, living in La La Land thinks that a “LAW” can be created or amended that would “honor our individual liberties”, etc, reveals the ignorance of what freedom is all about. Any LAW is a direct restriction on any and all freedoms and cannot coexist with thoughts of “honoring” individual liberties.

Trahan somehow finds comfort to know other false gun rights groups have joined in the discussion to further restrict and water down gun rights.

Trahan assures members his efforts at a “compromise” is not a compromise to a “Red Flag Law.” What’s the difference. Anyone wishing to compromise any portion of the Second Amendment is not a friend of the rights of any individual.

The executive director of SAM is asking members to trust him: “…that your leaders are protecting firearm owner’s rights and your best interests,” and that when he is finished with his compromise that isn’t a compromise, “Maine people will be pleased.”

I have little confidence that he or any others working to compromise my gun rights away are looking out for my best interest. To think that any person or group of persons can equitably determine whether another person is in “crisis” and do it in any fashion that is within the scope of a person’s rights, not just gun rights, is unrealistic and fanciful thinking. It is, perhaps, the greatest tragedy of a person’s rights when others, equipped with political and personal ideologies, attempts to determine the condition in which another person is capable of exercising rights or should be removed from the normal activities of society.

Who in the hell do we think we have become?

Is it that we now believe that employing the evils of democracy we can, while instituting our own twisted, post-normal societal values, determine the fate of others while claiming we are protecting our rights?

Geez!

Share

Maine Fish And Wildlife: A Salute to Service

Share

Denial of Bear Behavior

In an article in the Bangor Daily News, a writer tells of how one area of Maine has become a hot spot for Spring bear encounters as the bears search for food after a long winter of prolonged diet.

Unfortunately, ignorance of bear behavior places people in danger of more serious encounters or attacks by hungry bears. The article states: “I don’t feel threatened by him, but I would not go out and try to pet him, no. We both respect him. You have to respect them and keep your distance. I have had so many people tell me that he will come through your door, he will come through your windows, but we use common sense, too. We don’t treat them like pets.”

The first thing to understand is that a hungry bear doesn’t much care about how you feel about them. Becoming acclimated to a source of food outside your house, means the next step will be to get a taste of some of that savory smelling foods from inside. Bears will easily go through screen windows and break doors and bust up glass if they are intent on the food inside. When they decide to do that, I hope the bears only go after the good smelling food and not the humans in the house.

I guess it’s some sort of human gesture to say you “respect” the bears, use “common sense” and “don’t treat them like pets.” But seriously, do you think a bear has the reasoning powers to understand that you respect them and are using common sense? It might sound like a good explanation for bad behavior but a hungry bear isn’t interested in your feelings toward them.

And on another note, when will writers stop insisting that bear attacks are rare? Rare as compared to what? Feeding bears out your back door causes the risk of a bear attack to go up exponentially and therefore the event is far from rare.

Every time a writer or a wildlife biologist suggests that bear attacks are rare, the signal is sent out that there is little to be concerned with. What should be of concern is someone feeding bears in their backyard, believing the chances of something happening as “rare” while having “respect,” “using common sense,” and “not treating them like pets.” Rare is gone out the window.

To feed bears, as pets, and then state that they don’t treat them as pets, shows the ignorance that will, eventually, land them in trouble. I hope it is not serious when it happens.

Share