April 25, 2019

Drones Increase Heart Rates Of Wild Bears. Too Much Stress?

*Editor’s Note* – This is typical garbage reporting and plays into the Left’s continuing control over media and the perceptions they wish readers to take away. The real question here is whether managing and monitoring bears by human encounters is more or less “stressful” on the bears than a couple of harassing drones? Another question unanswered and probably never asked; is an increased heart rate of a bear a clear indication of stress?

It doesn’t really matter here does it. What matters to the reporters is that man is causing “stress” on bears. Does that entitle them to free health care? Seems that way to me.

They managed to conduct 18 flights over four bears. And what they found is that a visit from a drone made a bear’s heart beat faster.

“One of them was a 400 percent increase from about 41 beats per minute to over 160 beats per minute,” Ditmer says.

This happened even though video taken by the drones showed the bears acting blase.

Source: Drones Increase Heart Rates Of Wild Bears. Too Much Stress? | Maine Public Broadcasting

Share

Islesboro grapples over deer hunt — again

ISLESBORO, Maine — Along with flowers, warm breezes and visitors from other states, warm weather on Islesboro brings worries about ticks, Lyme disease and, by most accounts, an overabundance of deer on the picturesque Maine island community. Earlier this month, residents voted 45 to 27 at a special town meeting […]

Source: Islesboro grapples over deer hunt — again — Midcoast — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Share

Hoping for Cold to Kill Winter Ticks Didn’t Much Help – Still Blame Global Warming

Once again we have the displeasure of reading more nonsense from the media and moose biologists still insisting global warming is making winter ticks on moose more prevalent.

I’m not going to waste me time anymore hoping somebody will listen. Maybe I’ll just ask some simple questions.

If global warming is causing more ticks and during those winters when they are perceived as “average” to even “severe” and the prevalence of ticks basically remains unchanged, they how can anybody, with a straight face, continue to blame global warming for more ticks?

These clowns blame everything on some fake, unscientific claim about a warming planet. This is done so much, I don’t think they would know the real scientific process if it bit them in the face.

Second question: If the theory was that the world was cooling (using the same process of fake data to support warming) would these fake biologists be blaming global cooling because there’s too many ticks and not enough moose to satisfy the moose watchers?

Share

Wein plan would concentrate on cull

Deer & Tick Committee member Marc Wein wants to reshuffle the allocation of money from 4-posters to culling of deer.
Source: Wein plan would concentrate on cull | Shelter Island Reporter

Share

Deer of Our Future

The current wildlife management programs in America are now driven by “natural regulation” and predator protection. If this continues, the below photo is about all that will be left for people to “view” for deer in their state. Add to that, elk, moose, caribou and many others.

DeerSculpture

Share

Washington Proposing to Change How Wolves are Managed

“The bill sponsored by Sen. Brian Dansel, R-Republic, would order the state Department of Fish & Wildlife to change its 2011 wolf management plan to base full recovery on packs instead of breeding pairs; to examine wolves killing livestock and wildlife, such as deer and elk; and to nail down when a wolf can be legally killed.

The department also would have to determine when ranchers and farmers can be compensated for the loss of livestock to wolves. The deadline to overhaul the wolf management plan is June 30, 2017.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

RMEF Joins Wyoming, Feds in Next Step toward Possible Wolf Appeal

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.-The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Wyoming, filed a notice of appeal in the Wyoming wolf case issued by the District Court of the District of Columbia. In essence, the legal move preserves RMEF’s ability to go forward with an appeal, if it is decided to do so.

“We maintain that state agencies, not the federal government, are in the best position to manage our wildlife-that includes wolves in Wyoming,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “The judge removed that responsibility from Wyoming wildlife managers on a technicality that has since been addressed.”

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson recently disagreed with most of the environmentalists’ claims. She ruled that wolves in Wyoming are not endangered, are recovered as a species and that there is plenty of genetic connectivity. However, she rejected Wyoming’s wolf management plan that took effect in 2012 by stating the USFWS should not have accepted Wyoming’s nonbinding promise to maintain a population of at least 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs outside Yellowstone Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation.

The latest wolf count as of December 31, 2013, indicates a minimum of 306 wolves in 43 packs in Wyoming, and a minimum of 320 packs and 1,691 wolves in the Northern Rockies.

Almost immediately after Judge Jackson’s ruling, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead addressed the technicality by signing and filing an emergency rule that established his state’s commitment to the management plan as legally enforceable.

“Going forward, we will continue to monitor the situation and explore all avenues that return management of wolves to the state of Wyoming,” added Allen.

Share

Maine’s Bear Biologists Discuss Increasing Bear Populations And Management Strategies At Conference

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

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia – Burgeoning black bear populations throughout the northeast were among the major topics discussed at the annual Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee meeting in Virginia. Maine bear biologists Randy Cross and Jennifer Vashon joined bear biologists from 16 states and six Canadian provinces for the annual conference, which was held August 27 and 28 in Front Royal, Virginia.

“Nearly all the northeast states are increasing hunting opportunities to try and control black bear numbers,” said Vashon. “New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia all recently increased the length of their black bear hunting seasons. Connecticut is considering enacting a bear hunt, and Maryland has been increasing the number of bear permits available.”

The two-day meeting focused on issues surrounding bear managers in the northeast. Among the topics discussed over the two days included reports from subcommittees/

*Bear population management strategies, including population estimates, modeling techniques and harvest strategies.
*Effectiveness of focused hunting in in urban and suburban areas to reduce conflicts between bears and people.
*Developing a standard message for how to react in a bear-human encounter.
*Standardized protocols for responding to bear attacks and the recent bear attack training received by the Southeast Black Bear Technical Committee.
*Summarizing data on care and rehabilitation of orphaned cubs.
*Ongoing predator prey/prey research about black bear and deer.

“The first day involves status reports from each state and province, where bear managers highlight what is happening in their state, and then we hear from our working groups that are tasked with researching certain topics,” said Cross.

Vashon noted that one of the more interesting topics for the working groups was the discussion concerning aversive conditioning of nuisance black bears, where bears are hazed or harassed in hopes that nuisance bear behavior won’t be repeated.

“What the group found was that there was no silver bullet or one tool that was effective, and that aversive conditioning is an effective short-term solution, especially when addressing an immediate public safety issue or when property damage is severe,” said Vashon. That was the result of studies in three different states where biologists radio-collared nuisance bears and subjected them to aversive conditioning after a nuisance bear complaint.

“Dealing with increasing nuisance conflicts is a priority for most eastern states,” said Vashon. “The committee is currently evaluating if increasing hunting opportunity around urban areas can alleviate conflicts. Initial findings indicate that increased hunting around urban areas is effective at removing bears that cause problems in backyards.”

One part that is particularly helpful to bear managers is feedback from the committee.

“These people know their subject and can give you feedback. It helps improve your program based upon the shared knowledge within the committee,” said Vashon.

The Northeast Black Bear Technical Committee first met in Maine in 2002 and has met every year since then. Vashon, Maine’s lead bear biologist, was the chair of the committee from 2007-2010. As chair, Vashon was instrumental in bringing the Eastern Black Bear Workshop to Maine in 2013.

Share

Predator Management (Control) is Essential

Justin Field with Team Fate Outdoors brings you right to the scene of predator kills. Raising awareness of our wildlife’s rapid decrease in numbers. In the near future you will see a huge change in our hunting privileges! Hindering what I believe is our God given right. Predator management is essential in all aspects. If you agree with me please share this video and repost. Team Fate Outdoors leaving you wanting more!!
Sincerely Justin Field

Predator Management Is Essential With Team Fate Outdoors from Justin Field on Vimeo.

Share

Don’t Cry For Me Maine Deer Hunters

When I opened George Smith’s article today in the Bangor Daily News, I thought that all of Maine’s northern forests had been wiped out and it was time for all Maine sportsmen, managers and biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to search for the “tanto” for performing an act of “Seppuku.” But let’s not disembowel anybody just yet. And, I am exaggerating just a bit.

The good news is, that it appears as though at least one other outdoor writer has enough passion to put passion into his writing when it comes to what is being done about the Maine whitetail deer herd. And for that I would never suggest he keep quiet.

Mr. Smith makes reference to a recent study from the University of Maine, author Daniel Harrison, about the effectiveness of protecting habitat and specifically deer wintering habitat in the northern climes of Maine.

“I was, frankly, stunned by some of the findings…”

“When I read that, I thought: so it’s not all about predation by bears and coyotes! Perhaps the focus of the Maine Game Plan for Deer needs to be broadened from its almost sole focus on killing coyotes.”

Stunned? Surely, not. That is if you understand what has been going on in the woods, the actual non effort of those fingered to do something constructive about this problem and what’s really behind a study and an examination into what it really says.

I’m also a bit puzzled by Smith’s comment that the Maine Game Plan for Deer is, “almost sole focus on killing coyotes.” I didn’t think the Plan was all that much about killing coyotes, and predators in general, but contained a whole lot of unattainable things…..even some of those George writes of in his article. More on the predator issue in a bit.

The study in reference, has to be taken for what it is, who did it and why. The study needs to be studied and while doing that look for the little things that shed more light on what’s really going on and for whom it benefits, etc.

I’m not going to dissect the entire study but let’s take a couple examples. The study says:

Given that zoning of a small part of the landscape was ineffective for meeting population-level habitat objectives for deer in Maine, other collaborative landscape conservation
approaches will likely be needed to couple forestry and wildlife habitat objectives on managed forests in the region.

How can this one study make that conclusion? What this is saying is that zoning of the landscape didn’t work because the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is not achieving population goals for deer in those same areas.

An examination of the 14-page report speaks of nothing except habitat. Is the reason MDIFW has or isn’t achieving deer population goals strictly due to habitat? I know MDIFW loves to make that the focus of their excuses du jour, but at least some are willing to admit that weather, climate, predators, disease, etc. also play an integral role.

When the same report also makes statements like: “The extent to which past zoning has been successful in protecting habitat within deer wintering areas is unknown.”, and, “Further, the extent that landscape changes adjacent to DWA’s have affected the ability of DWAs to serve as viable
deer wintering habitats is uncertain(emphasis added),” are we then to assume that any and all efforts to rebuild a deer herd be abandoned? And/or that any effort to protect habitat is “ineffective?”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not relegating the University of Maine’s report as useless nor am I standing up blindly to the MDIFW’s deer management efforts. As the study suggests, “alterations in deer
management objectives, as well as new approaches to forest landscape and biodiversity conservation are needed.” And perhaps MDIFW should look toward making some changes and using this study as only one part of the plan and not all of the plan.

What I took away from the study was not a sense of fear, dredge and an urge for self-flogging over the future, but a question as to how the administrators of this study can reach a statement that says protecting land areas used for wintering deer is ineffective simply because deer population goals are not being reached. There exists a myriad of other circumstances that readily effect deer population. Habitat and it’s complexities make up only a part of that. I honestly don’t think this report makes any effort in explaining that at all and they should have. It is completely focus on only habitat.

Which brings me back to the point Smith made about Maine’s Game Plan for Deer is all focused on killing coyotes. As I stated, the Plan is not all focused on killing coyotes and neither are the majority of sportsmen in the state of Maine. They mostly understand that predators, those large enough to impact the deer herd, i.e. coyotes/wolves, bear, bobcat, lynx, etc. need controlling just like all the other game species MDIFW is given management responsibilities over.

One needs a deep enough understanding about interactions between predators and deer before suggesting to give up on predator control and management. Abandoning a predator control program at this time in the state’s effort to help a shrinking herd would be catastrophic.

MIDFW and others, and now found in this report, have stated that deer population goals are not being met. Even if we buy into the study that habitat is being destroyed and that it is that which is preventing a rebound in deer populations, then it is even more pressing that we not only maintain a predator reduction program but perhaps increase it.

What makes for a predator pit, that is a situation where there are too many predators that will never allow for the rebuilding of a prey species, such as deer, is when there are so few deer and too many predators. Even if habitat is diminishing, while we work on finding ways to deal with that, we can’t just give up a coyote killing program simply because a forestry group says not cutting down certain zoned forests to protect deer isn’t effective. All efforts should be made to attempt to bring a deer herd to goal levels and/or carrying capacities and neither of those are happening.

In conclusion, we must also consider the authors of the study. Studies are what they are (to use an already overused expression) and one has to consider the source, whose paying for the study and why, etc. I would have expected nothing different to come from this study because it was done by and about the Maine Forest Industry. I would be looking to protect my property and my rights to harvest my timber as well.

It is up to MDIFW and others to look to see what changes might be needed, short of all out abandoning ship.

My fear is that MDIFW will use this study to throw up their hands and exclaim that they’ve tried and there is nothing they can do to save the habitat, suggesting giving up. It’s not ALL about habitat.

It ain’t pretty but it’s far from over…..if you care enough.

forestreport

And piping plovers I would surmise!

Share