August 24, 2019

What’s a Ghost Moose? How Ticks Are Killing an Iconic Animal

*Editor’s Note* – This article presents nothing new. As a matter of fact, much of what is discussed probably is revealing as to what the real problem with too many winter ticks is caused by. Until fake scientists, agenda seekers and automatons cease with the relentless mantra of “climate change,” nothing will happen to discover the truth about moose and ticks.

As New England winters get warmer and shorter, ticks are driving a worrisome decline in a species that’s crucial to the region’s economy.

Source: What’s a Ghost Moose? How Ticks Are Killing an Iconic Animal

Share

Is Maine Going in the Wrong Direction With Moose Harvest Plans?

mooseI have questioned whether the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) should be reducing moose densities rather than taking efforts to keep population levels where they are or even considering increasing them. This question, from my perspective, is based mostly on whether or not the objectives created by MDIFW for moose population density goals within categorized Wildlife Management Districts (WMD), is in the best interest of the health of the moose herd.

In an article by the Associated Press, it said that Maine plans to reduce moose permits for this year’s coming moose hunt to, “the fewest number in 12 years and a reduction of nearly 10 percent over last year.”

In addition, the article quotes Lee Kantar, MDIFW head moose biologist, as saying, “We have to be cautious. Coming out of this winter, we’re already seeing less of an effect [from ticks].”

This, on the surface, would appear to be the prudent and responsible thing to do. But perhaps we first need to ask if Maine’s present moose population is too high.

While Maine is undergoing moose studies and aerial count surveys, the guesstimation on the moose population in the last 3 or 4 years has run from a high of 90,000 to a more conservative estimate of around 75,000. This same article, referenced to above, states that Maine officials currently estimate the population at around 60,000 to 70,000.

It is my understanding that MDIFW will be or perhaps they already have, begun work on a new moose management plan. The current one is outdated and appears to have not been adhered to. For example, the current assessment states that in 1999, the time the assessment was done (only 16 years old but we can gather some valuable information from this), the estimated moose population in the state was 29,000. At that level, MDIFW assessed the population densities for each of the WMDs. Densities seemed to range anywhere from 0.8 moose per square mile (WMD 10, 11, 19 and part of 18) to a high of 3.4 moose per square mile (WMDs 9 and 14).

In examining each of the assessments, it appears that all of the zones where labeled as being at least half the estimated carrying capacity (the number of moose that habitat could handle). Under ideal conditions, and in some areas, the report states that moose could be as high in density as 5.6 moose per square mile.

If the moose population estimate at 75,000 was accurate, then that puts it at approximately 2.6 times the 29,000 estimate of 1999. If all things were relative, simple math says that moose must be well above carrying capacity, at least in some areas.

The Moose Management System plan calls for a recommended goal of moose density at 55% – 65% of carrying capacity (K). If the 1999 objectives were even close to reality, Maine is certainly managing moose populations at far greater than 55% – 65% of carrying capacity. These estimations calculated at the time were for both moose density and carrying capacity.

Granted, new science brings changes to goals and management strategies, but these numbers sure leave some of us scratching our heads wondering what was going on and still is.

By the way, it should be noted that in these reports that I have referred to, it was estimated that the moose populations were not expected to grow over the next 10 years. What happened? Either the 1999 estimates were so far off they were worthless, or the calculation used to model the population trends for moose was flawed – as were perhaps the carrying capacity.

So, we come back to the same question as to whether Maine is attempting to grow and manage too many moose? In the management plan, it is stated that one of the two major considerations being taken in determining at what level the population of moose should be, is demands by the viewing public. While this activity might be exciting to the viewers and offers guides and others to pocket some extra cash, is manipulating moose densities to a level high enough to keep moose watchers happy a scientific and prudent thing to do?

Perhaps it is time to consider other factors when determining at what level to target moose populations. If 29,000 moose in 1999 were somewhere just slightly less than the 55% – 65% of carrying capacity (as estimated), what, then, is 75,000 moose doing to the moose and the state?

I visited the New Hampshire fish and wildlife website to see what they were trying to do with their population. They presently are at a crossroad of determining what to do, i.e. should they have a moose hunt at all because of population reductions.

New Hampshire’s most densely populated moose area is in the Connecticut Lakes region – 2.23 moose per square mile. In 1994, 3.12 moose per square mile was considered above carrying capacity. And, New Hampshire also has a tick problem. Are these related?

While some seem to just be puzzled by this confounded tick problem, I am wondering just how puzzled some scientists are. Maybe this is a good opportunity to get some of the grant money to do more studies? In digging through New Hampshire’s Moose Assessment, and found this bit of a jewel:

Musante (2006) has shown that winter tick is our greatest mortality influence and our monitoring programs have revealed that it is ubiquitous in time and area in the northern regions. Scarpitti (2006) and Bergeron (2011) have suggested that available browse does not seem to [be] an issue in the northern regions although actual browse productivity studies were not conducted. Both Scarpitti (2006) and Bergeron (2011) also indicated that tick loads alone could influence body weight and productivity as did Garner (1993). This means that in areas where the moose population is large enough to support ticks, the Central region and northward, we have lost a relatively easy method of using reproductive output to measure where we are in relationship to K as defined by food availability. Winter tick is now felt to be the biggest influence on pregnancy rates and weights of yearlings and adults. As such, it is now a measure of the populations relationship to K as defined by levels of animals that can be supported without severe adverse impacts from parasitism. (emboldening added)

This statement clearly admits that first, there must be a population of moose large enough to support ticks, and second, that in determining at what density moose should be in relation to carrying capacity, it must be considered the impact of ticks (parasitism).

Maine has decided to be “cautious” in not reducing moose numbers lower than the current estimate of 70,000 (or in order to grow more moose?) Is MDIFW considering the two things above that I just mentioned? By all accounts, Maine certainly has a large enough moose population to support a tick infestation. But is MDIFW considering that perhaps the population is too high and is only exacerbating the tick problem?

Somebody has to make a decision on this because in all honesty I don’t think we can rely on global warming or global cooling to cure the tick problem.

Share

New Hampshire Thinks About Ending Moose Hunts

As with any game specie that reaches population levels, backed by scientific research, that call for the limitation or end of hunting, it should be done for obvious and not so obvious reasons. What is utterly sickening, non scientific and fraudulent, among other things, is to end a hunt, as is being suggested in New Hampshire, and to blame the reduction of moose on global warming.

According to Field and Stream:

Biologists are concerned that warmer winters and hotter summers have lead to an increase in parasites that are drastically affecting moose across the state.

Few will argue that the moose population in New Hampshire has decreased. To place the blame on global warming and its effects on parasites, including the winter tick, is just plain lazy dishonesty. As more and more scientists are finally admitting, the theories and the fraudulent “settled science” of global warming, mostly promoted by Al Gore, can not be backed by any real scientific research, people should be demanding that states, such as New Hampshire, stop using global warming as an excuse for incompetent wildlife management.

Computer modeling has become the new-science, post-normal science way of managing wildlife. Computer modeling might present interesting results, especially when they are designed and used for outcome-based results, the realities are that the results are worthless nonsense.

In the meantime, wildlife populations, like the moose, are suffering from fluctuations and the only excuse officials choose to use to hide their own incompetence is blame it on global warming.

Winter ticks, for example, have been around for a long time and are persistent from Texas to the Yukon. The theory that some are floating is that due to a warmer climate the tick is moving further north. How much further north can you go than the Yukon?

The fish and game departments are responsible for wildlife management. It’s time the fraud of global warming is taken out of the excuse bag and real science is implemented in order to honestly assess the problems at hand.

If, in fact, it is climate change, also known as normal climate cycles, that is the cause for moose reductions, then let’s discover it with honest scientific approach and not rely on some fake computer modeling derived from outcome-based “scientist” designed for the purpose of human control and tax fraud.

Share

Moose Ticks Have Always Been Here…Or Have They?

WinterTicksFew will disagree that the moose tick, aka, winter tick (dermacentor albipictus) can be a problem and that an over-abundance kills moose. The claim I have heard for many years is that the moose tick has always been around. Has it? Is making the statement using “around” an honest depiction of more important site specificity? What also concerns me about such statements is that it gives people cause to throw up their hands as if to say that there is nothing that can be done about it now. That may be true, but if there is any hope of trying to discover whether there is some kind of effective cure, isn’t it important to have a complete understanding of this tick?

It is basic knowledge that when any specie of animal exists in abundance or is forced into living in close quarters, disease becomes prevalent. The only way a disease can become prevalent in any species, as I just described, is that somehow that disease, parasite, virus, worm, etc. had to have been introduced, or that it already existed.

Being that we are living in a post-normal or post-scientific world, the dishonest answer to everything is climate change, i.e. global warming. While moose populations in Maine have, until the last couple of years, been increasing in large quantities, this reality flies in the face of global warming arguments that because of a warming climate in Maine moose should be migrating out of the area. Doesn’t seem to be the case. This discussion isn’t necessarily about global warming. I bring it up because it is NOT an explanation that helps to discover facts about moose and winter ticks. These ticks live in the Yukon and the same ticks live in Texas.

From a science institution’s perspective, there can never be studies enough on anything. To go along with that, we humans have had our little brains manipulated in such a way that our response to far too many issues has become to demand a study or a working group to talk about it. Studies mean money and money means more incomplete studies in order that there be more demand for more studies. Very unfortunate.

Working groups are useless and a complete waste of time. Over the years I have seen them be created, propaganda presented, and absolutely nothing getting accomplished.

Having said all this, then shouldn’t we question every time someone wants more studies and form more working groups? After all, it is OUR money. We should demand results…real results.

People in Maine want to know if ticks are really killing the moose. This is the same in New Hampshire and Minnesota. New Hampshire and Minnesota insist the problem is global warming. Global warming, in their wee bit of brains, is what is the cause of what they believe to be an increase in dermacentor albipictus.

We are also, perhaps incorrectly, told that these winter ticks don’t survive in cold climates and yet moose love cold climates and seem to be the one species most effected by the tick. If the winter tick doesn’t like cold climates, then why are these same tick regularly found in The Yukon? And in Texas?

One thing we all must understand, moose suck at grooming themselves. It is helpful knowledge to understand that because moose don’t groom themselves, like lots of other wild and domestic animals, they carry around more ticks. We should be able to reasonably conclude that moose are more greatly effected by the ticks than other ungulates, because they are poor groomers.

Another fact that is seldom discussed is which other animals play host to dermacentor albipictus? Here’s a few to add to your list: elk, caribou, deer, feral swine, wolves, coyotes, cattle and horses. In order to understand how to deal with the moose tick we need to understand other hosts and how the tick is spread. Bear in mind that elk and caribou migrate, sometimes over many, many miles. We know over the years feral swine are spreading all over the United States.

But, consider this fact. According to Gabriele Liebisch, Arndt Liebisch, Stephan Paufler in a study, a horse was transported by plane to Germany from Montana:

Already on arrival at the airport of Amsterdam about 30 fully engorged ticks dropped off the horse, and during the following 4 days in the stable in Germany more than 200 engorged ticks were collected. The tick species was identified as Dermacentor albipictus, which is also called ‘winter tick’.

This study refers to this tick as “New World Tick” because it is a different species than what might be found in Germany. Germany has moose but not necessarily the same problem with the tick and the moose…yet.

Other things found in studies already completed that should be considered, involve the feral swine. In a study published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, and published on BioOne, feral hogs found in New Hampshire were tested. Remember New Hampshire blames their problem with ticks on global warming.

The expansion of feral swine (Sus scrofa) populations into new geographic regions is of concern not only due to increased range but also because they carry diseases and parasites that pose a threat to humans, livestock, and wildlife into new areas. Recently, emerging feral swine populations have been reported in the northeastern US and due to their adaptive nature will likely continue to spread. During 2009–2012, 49 feral swine were removed from three counties in New Hampshire.

Infestations of winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) were also documented on two of the feral swine which had only been reported previously on feral swine in Texas. Feral swine may not only serve as an important host for an economically important commercial swine pathogen like PRV, but they could also increase host diversity for parasites such as the winter tick, a species that can regionally impact moose (Alces alces) survival.

There’s more. I had already mentioned that these winter ticks were found in the Yukon. Published in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, a study on the origins of dermacentor albipictus, showed that perhaps the tick might have hitched a ride to the Yukon.

Winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) on elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) have recently increased in numbers in the Yukon, Canada, potentially posing risks to other indigenous host species in the region.

Based on our results, winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could have originated either by translocation from central Alberta or by northward range expansion of more geographically proximate populations in northern Alberta and British Columbia. Although there was some genetic structuring of winter ticks on different hosts in the same region, we found little evidence of host specificity in winter ticks from five ungulate host species, suggesting that the winter ticks on elk in the Yukon could potentially become established on other locally available host species such as moose (Alces alces).

While on the subject of referencing existing studies, consider that some scientists find that climate and weather have less effect on the growth and reduction of ticks than others believe.

With this knowledge in hand, can we ask for a more definitive response to the origins of the moose tick than it’s always been around? Maybe it hasn’t always been around. Maybe it was brought into your state or region from someplace else or migrated there.

In reading all of this information, wildlife biologists, along with parasitologists, should be asking whether or not it is a good and responsible practice to allow for the over protection of wild species and seek perhaps a better control over human translocation of wild and domestic animals.

Just maybe what is also being realized here are some of the effects of practicing an ignorant, romantic notion of “balance of nature” where nature magically creates a healthy ecosystem where nothing is wrong. With continued and prolonged efforts to protect wild animal species at high levels, are we not promoting the spread of disease, including winter ticks? Nature allows for regulation via disease, starvation and cannibalism. The result is scarcity which is irresponsible stewardship of wildlife and benefits no human. It is the worst of all choices.

Instead of just throwing some grant money at another study to try to find out if ticks are killing moose, why not practice some good, old-fashioned, hard work and research of the information that is available. I don’t want to have somebody else tell me ticks are killing moose. I know they are. What I’m interested in is finding out if there’s a scientific (real scientific) answer for why there appears to be more ticks and how to stop them before more devastation occurs. It seems to me that nobody has a handle on this necessary information. The only cry is about global warming. Get over it!

If there’s more ticks because there’s too many moose, the solution is simple – we need to kill more moose. If the cause is due to translocation of ticks from outside the region, then let’s stop it. Finding the truth is what’s important. Global warming theory is NOT truth. Spending money to see whether or not ticks are killing moose is akin to spending money to discover if snow is cold.

Share

Is Socialized Wildlife Management Killing Maine’s Moose?

MooseTickMap*Editor’s Note*: Below I have republished an article I wrote in February of 2012 called, “Are Winter Ticks Killing Maine’s Moose Population?” I have edited this report to update bad links and to remove some information that is not exactly that relevant to current events.

The point of republishing the article is in response to the recent announcement that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is going to reduce available moose permits this late summer and fall by nearly 30% due to a significant die-off of moose during the most recent winter event. The responses to this announcement are mostly based on bad information, especially coming from those who believe the increased number of ticks killing moose is attributed to “global warming”; conveniently that term has been changed to “climate change” in order to fool more people. Persisting in the mantra of climate change is dishonest at best and shows ignorance to an understanding of the life cycle of the winter moose tick and what environmental and biological conditions effect the tick.

Burying our heads in the sand and blindly following climate change as the excuse du jour is partly a product of socialized wildlife management. Socialized wildlife management began when our wildlife managers abandoned sound and scientific animal biology and replaced it with social tolerances and desires of the public in what they wanted for wildlife in their neighborhoods. This, of course, is utter nonsense and is often referred to as “Romance Biology” – that is a form of fantasy or idealistic coexistence with animals based on some mythological notion that nature will balance itself if man would just shrivel up and go away.

In addressing Maine’s moose herd, we know that over the past several years, people have clamored and whined to the state that they wanted more and more moose to “watch”; some even claiming huge money to be made with moose watching tours. But is this social demand for more moose biologically sound?

It is my theory, and I’m not alone in these thoughts, that following the attack of the spruce budworm that resulted in the clear-cutting of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of acres of infested forests, the resulting landscape, as the forests regenerated, made for prime moose habitat, as well as habit for the snowshoe hare which helps explain the resurgence of Canada lynx.

Maine’s moose population grew rapidly and without definite tools at the disposal of moose managers, it was only educated guesstimates used to determine what might have been a reasonable number of moose. We should have known things were growing too fast when the state had to offer moose hunting permits in some southern Wildlife Management Districts. With recent aerial counts we now have a better idea.

In the link that will appear below of work done by William Samuel about moose ticks, Samuel provides a map that shows where moose ticks appear. The map also shows the range of the moose and as most of us know the moose in Maine are at the southern end of the range. For that reason alone shouldn’t we be concerned that a moose population that has grown to an official count of 75,000, with some estimations up near 90,000, that this is not normal?

If MDIFW is going to continue to guide their wildlife management by social demands, the future and health of wildlife populations can probably expect more of disease, parasite, worms and other infestations.

As is pointed out in the republished article below, maybe instead of reducing the moose harvest to keep number artificially high, we should considering an overall reduction in population. William Samuel does say that more moose mean more ticks. After all, ticks thrive when there are a lot of hosts to suck blood from.

Are Winter Ticks Killing Maine’s Moose Population?

There seems to be a bit more information about winter ticks that I haven’t found in any Maine publications that deals more in depth with what happens in the fall when the winter tick larvae are gathering on vegetation waiting for a free ride with a host. In addition to that, while these winter ticks effect all wild ungulates, why pick on the moose so much. And, it is said that the winter ticks don’t actually kill the moose, but rarely, are we looking at an honest assessment of all factors that kill a moose weakened by tens of thousands of blood sucking ticks?

Lee Kantar says that the winter tick is a “huge contributor” to the death of some moose, he also points out that, “it’s not the sole cause”. Even on the MDIFW website [Note: the original link is no longer valid after MDIFW redesigned their website. In it’s place MDIFW links to an off-site location for information about winter ticks.], information provided about moose states that, “winter tick and lung worm infestations rarely kill moose”.

This information is supported in existing studies about moose and winter ticks. William M. Samuel and Dwight A. Welch, “Winter Ticks on Moose and Other Ungulates: Factors Influencing Their Population Size,”[Once again the original link I had on studies by William Samuel and Dwight Welch is no longer valid. The actual study now is behind a pay wall. I will provide here a link to a preview of a book with the title I’ve shown. It is in this preview where the map of where moose ticks prevail is available.] states that winter ticks (dermacentor albipictus) being the cause of death isn’t certain because, “unequivocal evidence is lacking”.

I think therefore it might be honest to conclude that the cause of death in the majority of dead moose being found in the Maine woods that are inundated with ticks, was not the tick alone. There had to have been other factors. We’ll address those in a moment.

First I think it important to better understand what takes place in the fall of the year. We have read statements from biologists and outdoor sportsmen that seem to indicate that Maine needs little snow and very cold temperatures to kill off the ticks. While that may be true it’s not the entire story in the life cycle of these ticks.

Samuel and Welch state that for there to be significant die-offs of winter ticks, you need 6 consecutive days in which the temperature does not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not the only way to kill the ticks and/or lessen the severity of ticks on moose.

During the fall months, in Maine’s climate around September and October, the winter tick larvae find their way onto vegetation. They clump together on the ends of small branches etc. These larvae can be found on vegetation just above the ground to quite high up in trees. The larvae wait until a passing, warm-bodied host, in this case a moose, passes by and then they attach themselves to the moose and the ride begins. You can read all the splendid details by reading the studies, etc.

It is during this time of year, September/October, that certain weather events can have a significant effect on how severe the tick season will become. Early cold temperatures, especially those below freezing, will greatly reduce the activity of the larvae, i.e. limiting their effectiveness of attaching themselves to the moose or even migrating up the stems of vegetation.

Early snows can bury the larvae and stiff fall winds will blow the larvae off the vegetation scattering it around and to the ground preventing the larvae from being able to find a host. The studies of Samuel and Welch, as well as others [original link can no longer be found], seem to agree that the weather events of the fall have a greater effect on tick production than hoping for enough snow and cold in winter to kill the ticks. Without a host, the larvae die.

There are other interesting things to be discovered about moose and winter ticks. For example, these winter ticks bother all wild ungulates, i.e. deer, moose, elk, etc., but most scientists will agree that it seems to be the moose that is the most effected. It is assumed that it all has to do with timing.

The aggregation of the larvae on vegetation seems to more closely fall in line with the timing of the moose mating season. During this time, moose are most active, covering greater amounts of territory than normal and male moose travel more than the females and thus explains the observation by some that it seems bull moose are more effected by the winter ticks than cows. I believe this conclusion about bull moose vs. cow moose is based on assumptive reasoning than anything concluded through scientific study.

In the Samuel/Welch study, experiments were conducted and it was determined that moose have an aversion to larvae/tick infested food. Imagine if they didn’t. If moose have an ability to smell or sense the larvae on the vegetation and in their food, it might also help to explain the claims of some and what is obvious on the ground that predators and scavengers won’t touch the dead carcass of a tick infested moose.

Studies have shown us that there can exist tens of thousands of ticks on any one moose and that this number of ticks can certainly put the moose into a weakened state. Moose are already in a weakened state just trying to survive the winters. Compound that with 50,000 ticks and the problems snowball. However, as we have learned, the ticks alone rarely kill a moose but certainly contribute to it.

When the blood sucking begins, the moose spends much of it’s time “grooming”. Studies tell us that moose that are troubled by the biting ticks do not bed down as often nor as long as non infected moose. This of course tires the animal even more.

While studies seem to be lacking on exactly what happens to the composition of the moose’s blood while all these ticks are feasting, it is honest to assume that the more female, blood sucking ticks there are on a moose, factoring also the moose’s body mass, the greater a weakened state is realized due to loss of blood.

All of these factors and more, make the moose more vulnerable to all the other elements that contribute to normal winter kill. In other words, it becomes more difficult to get enough nourishment; loss of blood and reduced winter hair makes the moose more susceptible to hypothermia; spending so much time “grooming” expends valuable energy needed for survival and with all these losses a moose certainly could not ward off attacks and harassment by predators.

This is perhaps where I’ll get ambushed but please consider the facts and possibilities. There is no denying that coyotes/wolves will harass and kill moose, deer and elk during their weakened winter states. Even though it is seen and believed to be accurate that predators and even scavengers will not touch a tick-infested moose carcass, at what point does a pack of hungry wolves/coyotes know their target is tick infested.

Some of us have been made aware through written and video accounts of how these predators take down and kill, often eating alive, their prey. We have also seen videos and photographs that document coyotes and wolves chasing down their prey. How long could a moose, weakened by normal winter strains and tick infestation, last in trying to run away from a predator attack? Not long I’m afraid. Would the moose have survived if the predator wasn’t there? There’s no way of knowing the answer to that question.

Which brings us once again back to the same point about predators. It seems that when all things within our forests are going well, little concern is given to predators and the effects they have on our game animals. When things get skewed, those populations of predators loom large over the forests and can raise some serious cane even to a point of prohibiting the rebuilding of a herd of deer or moose, in this case a herd that might be suffering some from these blasted ticks.

So, what do we do about the ticks? What can we do? In one report a gentleman suggested some kind of spraying program to kill the ticks but I’m not sure how feasible that is or if that’s something we want to pour onto our landscapes. We can’t control the weather but we can control the predators. But, is that the answer either to this exact equation?

In George Smith’s blog post yesterday, he explained that one Dr. Anthony who attended a recent information session on Maine’s moose, suggested that instead of trying to limit hunting permits for moose to protect them due to increased mortality from ticks, that killing more of the moose might be the better solution.

I’ll leave you with some questions. Feel free to chime in below in the comments section with some answers.

1. According to George Smith’s blog post I referenced above, in 2007 the estimated moose population of Maine was 45,000. Now Lee Kantar, Maine’s head deer and moose biologist claims there are 75,000 or more. Are there now too many moose in Maine which is exacerbating the tick problem?

2. If so, do we kill more moose during the moose hunt? Or do we protect more moose?

3. George Smith states that the new moose counts are, “more credible than any previous estimates”. He offers no substantive proof of his claim. Do you think the new counts are more “credible” or accurate than previous and why?

Who would have thought 35 years ago Maine would be asking if the state had too many moose?

Share

New Hampshire Will Waste $695,000 Studying Climate Change and Effects on Moose

I’ve written about this quite often. When ignorant, uninformed, brainwashed, propaganda-fed, non thinkers, blindly swallow the whole “climate change” lie and combine that with the convenient lie that moose ticks are prevalent because warm weather allows the ticks to grow unchecked, and you have a scenario where federal money can be used to conduct useless studies that are all outcome-based.

The Concord Monitor has an article all about how New Hampshire is going to spend $695,000 to study how climate change (of course it’s the man-caused climate change), which in their minds is causing tick problems, is affecting moose. Ticks are affecting moose in New Hampshire and Maine as well, although the seemingly ignorant moose project leader in New Hampshire says that Maine is not being affected. So much for any real credibility.

Instead of beating a dead horse with the tons of misinformation contained in the above linked-to article, here’s a list of some of the articles I’ve written about moose ticks.

1. Moose Populations Shrinking – No Talk of Predators
2. Problems With Ticks or At Least Those Who Study Them
3. Easier To Blame Global Warming for Moose Tick Infestation Than Seeking Truth
4. Are Winter Ticks Killing Maine’s Moose Population?

Share