May 23, 2015

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?

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Maine Moose Herd in Decline

Maybe more hunters and outdoor people will get sick and tired of the same old crap sandwich that the media doles out and begin asking for facts, instead of fiction, from the media and outdoor biologists.

In this linked-to article, complete with video, take note that Maine’s head moose biologist says nothing about a warming climate, and yet the news agency reporting cannot get through their report without suggesting to its viewers that any perceived moose problems in Maine are the result of moose ticks, caused by global warming.

The other disturbing item in this news account is that in what viewers were presented, there was also no mention of anything other than ticks that are killing the moose, specifically predators!

One last disgusting comment that can be heard is how damned important it is that Maine manages it’s moose population in order to keep those who want to see a moose, happy. Is there ANY consideration that that effort might be part or even all of the cause for spikes in ticks and other diseases? ANY? Of course not! It’s easier to blame a fake global warming scam. It’s a convenient excuse for everything and all things inept and corrupt.

Maine is in the middle of a moose study. From the information that I read, so far, it appears that Lee Kantar, Maine’s lead moose biologist, has kept a pretty good head in this game, and seems to be not eager to draw any conclusions, yet. That may be a good sign. It is imperative that real science, minus politics and lobbying pressures stay out of this study. While I hope that Maine becomes the first state to actually use real science to come to accurate conclusions, I’m not laying down any money that they will.

The moose is an important symbol of Maine. It’s on the state seal. It draws tens of thousands of tourists to be

Source: Maine Moose Herd in Decline

Moose Are Dying – Intelligent, Responsible Journalism is Extinct

An article sent to me by a reader, epitomizes the disgusting, irresponsible, ignorant, embellishing journalism is using to further brainwash already brainwashed people, who have had independent thought bred out of them.

The headline begins the travesty by declaring that moose are “dying in droves” because of global warming. Combine this with a final hilarious statement that:

A study earlier this year predicts that up to 97% of birds and mammals living in the vast region of northwest Alaska will experience major habitat affects from climate change.

and you have all the makings of a “C”-rated sci-fi movie – done in black and white. It is utter nonsense to lay claims of moose mortality on global warming when, in fact, there no longer exists ANY scientific evidence that global warming has occurred. What data that has been given the public, has all proven to be manipulated, worthless information that only helps those, like Al Gore, looking to line their pockets.

In addition, ALL studies done on global warming in the past that made “predictions” directed at scaring the hell out of pseudo-journalists like the one inking this nonsense, proved to be, not only inaccurate, but so far off all credibility was lost except to the useful idiots who still choose to believe the sky is falling.

The Doomsday writer wants to utilize a “study” that “predicts” the world is coming to an end because it sells copies? How insane. Computer modeling has proven to be a waste of time, not so much that the computers can’t make predictions but because the information being fed into them is design to produce the results needed to generate income to continue fake studies. Doesn’t anybody get this?

What’s most sad about this kind of irresponsible reporting is, it does nothing to assist and educate with facts in order that real science can be conducted to find out about the relationships with moose and all things within its environment that effects survivability of the animal. Yelling and screaming that global warming is creating bugs and viruses that are killing moose in “droves,” is akin to yelling fire in a movie theater when someone lights a match.

Actual, normal science strongly indicates that changes in climate have existed since the beginning of recorded history, are cyclical, and seriously affected by the sun. There is no real science that proves or even strongly suggests that burning of fossil fuels and other causes of carbon dioxide generation is sending the earth into some kind of irreversible death spiral. Get over it!

More than likely, what we are seeing with moose is a cyclical event, fueled in part by cycles of localized weather patterns, over-protection of moose that causes too high a population, which prompts disease, over-protection of predators that create precipitous drops in prey specie numbers, and a host of other factors.

It is just plain irresponsible for this reporter or anybody else to embellish such utter nonsense. Isn’t it time to get back to real science for the good of all?

Deadline to Apply for the Maine Moose Permit Lottery is May 14

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

The deadline to apply online for the Maine Moose Lottery is fast approaching, and hunters who want the chance to hunt moose in Maine need to visit bit.ly/mainemoosefestival and complete their online application by 11:59pm on May 14.

The online application process is fast and simple and you receive instant confirmation that you have successfully entered the lottery.

Bonus points are awarded for each consecutive year the applicant has applied for the lottery since 1998 without being selected and each bonus point gives the applicant an additional chance in the drawing.

Bonus points are earned at the rate of one per year for years one to five, two per year for years six to 10, three per year for years 11 to 15 and 10 per year for years 16 and beyond.

Since 2011, applicants can skip a year and not lose their bonus points. So if they applied in 2013 but not in 2014, they still have their points available if they apply in 2015.

Permit winners and their subpermittees will be able to hunt in one of the department’s 25 wildlife management districts (WMD’s), which cover more than 21,000 square miles.

The moose hunting season takes place between late September and late November, depending on the specific WMD given.

This year, the Department will be issuing 2,740 permits in a chance drawing that will take place on June 13, 2015 at the Moose Festival in Bethel, Maine. To learn more about the festival, please visit www.bethelmainemoosefest.com

For more information on the moose lottery, visit www.mefishwildlife.com.

Moose casually walks down Main Street

The video shows police following the moose until it made it safely back into the woods.

Source: Moose casually walks down Main Street

Ogunquit

Snowmobilers asked to give moose a break

While there is new snow on the snowmobile trails and still some riding left this season, riders are urged to stop for moose and let them go on their way.

Source: Snowmobilers asked to give moose a break | Escape Outside – WMUR Home

ErrolMoose

Maine Moose Permit Auction Raises Over $122,000 for Scholarships

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

AUGUSTA, Maine – Over $122,000 was raised for youth conservation education scholarships in Maine through the 2015 Maine Moose Permit Auction. Ten hunters bid a total of over $122,000 in an auction for the opportunity to hunt moose in Maine during the 2015 season.

Proceeds from the auction fund partial scholarships that will help send over 600 Maine youngsters to the University of Maine 4-H Camp & Learning Center at Bryant Pond and to Greenland Point Center in Princeton. These camps provide boys and girls ages 8 through 17 the opportunity to participate in a variety of outdoor and classroom activities. Students are taught by experienced instructors and counselors, as well as staff from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and other state and private conservation agencies.

“While the auction winners have the opportunity to partake in the hunt of a lifetime, their winning bids also ensure Maine children have the chance to learn outdoor skills that will give them a lifetime of appreciation of the Maine outdoors,” said Chandler Woodcock, Commissioner, Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

The auction was created by the Legislature and begin in 1995. It allows the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to publicly auction ten moose permits each year. Applicants submit bids through a written bid process. Permits are awarded to the ten winning bidders each February. The average bid ranges between $11,000-$13,000. Funds from the auction are specifically directed to youth conservation education programs.

Conservation camp programs are designed to teach Maine boys and girls the importance of conservation, a respect for the environment and a working knowledge of a variety of outdoor skills. Subjects taught at camp include wildlife identification, fishing, boating safety, archery, firearms handling, hunter safety, forest conservation, map and compass work and much more.

For more information on Greenland Point Center and the 4-H Camp and Learning Center at Bryant Pond, please visit their websites at www.greenlandpoint.com and www.umaine.edu/bryantpond/

For more information on the Maine Moose Permit Auction or moose hunting in Maine, please visit our website at www.mefishwildlife.com

Discrepancies in Issuance of Moose Permits

Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have a wide discrepancy in the implementation of moose hunting permits as part of its moose management plan. Why?

Keeping in mind that animals don’t see boundaries, there are geographical and habitat availability differences between the three northern New England states. These issues and many other factors, drive the plans and decision making processes of each state’s fish and wildlife department.

However, in a news report found in the Concord Monitor, we find that each of the three states use the issuing of moose permits for moose management in different ways – very different.

Vermont sends out one hunter for every 10 moose, Maine sends out one hunter for every 23 moose, while New Hampshire sends out one hunter for every 38 moose.

These numbers are based on moose population estimates for each of the three states as follows: Vermont – 2,400; Maine – 65,000; New Hampshire – 4,000.

Without having every available data to make comparisons, these numbers provide for interesting debate over a cup of joe.

This is Where You “Debark”

Hungry moose have stripped all the bark off this fallen tree.

DebarkedTree

Photo by Al Remington

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.