September 22, 2018

An Epiphany Outside of Environmentalism’s “New Approach” to Wildlife Management

With very little effort and a clear, open mind, it is obvious that when it comes to wildlife management things aren’t looked at in the same way as the tried and proven ways which created the foundation for the North American Model of Wildlife Management. It may, however, come as a surprise to many readers that this new environmentalist’s way of talking about wildlife management is a planned event and not something that just evolved over time – certainly not the result of real scientific research.

What is amazing, to me anyway, is when groups and individuals mired in the muck of environmentalism’s new approach to wildlife management, are forced to see what isn’t intended to be seen in this new approach. It shows itself as some kind of epiphany, as though because of lack of knowledge due mostly to a prohibition of access to historical documentation constructed from the actual scientific process, tested over decades and centuries of time, a moment of brilliance comes bursting through the muddled mess of what today we call modern wildlife management.

We catch a glimpse of this at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) where when it was discovered that winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) were numerous and killing off the state’s moose herd, modern wildlife management’s “new approach” declared the cause was global warming. Every echo chamber around the world wanted to reverberate the woes of man-caused global warming and yes, “we’re all gonna die!” Their emotional claims for cures demanded that the only way to mitigate this winter tick problem that is killing moose populations everywhere was to somehow find a “cure” for global warming – a condition that does not exist in the context of how it is being sold.

Maine began a moose study – determined, it was said, to get at the root causes of what was really reducing the moose population. I have been most pleasantly surprised to discover that Maine’s moose biologists dared break with the mold of “Climate Change ate my homework” and suggested what has been known for a long, long time what was stated by an Alaskan moose biologist in recent years, that the ONLY way to mitigate the winter tick problem is to reduce the population of moose.

In George Smith’s recent column he writes of a book, recommended to him by Maine’s Wildlife Division Director (White as a Ghost by Dr. Bill Samual) who is quoted as saying in his book, “As moose and tick numbers build, moose harvest by hunters is far more appropriate and humane than invasive harvest by winter ticks. We should be able to moderate some of the damage caused by winter ticks for moose by managing moose at below die-off levels.”

(Author’s Note: To dispell the critics who will want to claim that my call, and that of MDIFW’s, to reduce the moose population is rooted in the desire to hunt and kill more moose. For the control of ticks, it must be realized that once a “die-off level” is reached through controlled harvest, that die-off level will need to be maintained even while it changes and fluctuates up and down. That’s what real, responsible wildlife management is.)

Perhaps we can see a bit of this “new approach” to wildlife management in the attitude shown in what Smith writes: “And while this book was published in 2004, it is still very informative and pertinent to our moose/tick problem.” I find it a near incurable disease that has infested academia and every institution that employs science – a refusal to research historic documents, accounts, scientific research, etc. as though it was worthless because it is so old. In this case, the author seems to indicate that observations and documentation of Dr. Samuel aren’t dangerous to the new approach narrative of wildlife management even though it is an ancient history of some 14 years.

In my own research about winter ticks, because of the lack of any modern studies on ticks, I spent the majority of my time reading and studying the ones that have existed for many years. These old documents proved then that global warming could not be the cause of increased tick populations. This is valuable knowledge that should never be discarded because of age even if new studies want to suggest something else.

Some honest effort, with a goal of seeking the truth rather than propping up the new scientismic pathway, can reveal many useful things. This must begin with an attitude that historical scholarship isn’t useless, outdated material – it is the foundation of the Scientific Process.

Instead, we see here where it appears that some miraculous epiphany has caused the resulting talking points to become one of a need to reduce the moose population to solve much of the tick problem rather than wasting time with the mythological Climate Change fantasy.

Maybe the scientific process ruled in this case of the Maine moose study. Perhaps the efforts made and what appears to be a daring and honest assessment of what’s going on has helped to restore my faith that there are still glimmers of hope in wildlife management – that it hasn’t completely gone to the environmental dogs…yet.

These epiphanies present themselves as though a discovery was made, and something is written as old as 2004 supports that discovery. It should be the other way around. That is the scientific process. But, if you don’t know and have not researched the scientific process, this is what we see. In this case, it appears as though a correct conclusion has been reached despite lack of historic scientific knowledge.

There should be a great takeaway from this. We will see.

Share

Maine County Employees Running Into Too Many Deer, Moose, Bear

While running into these large animals can cause property damage and serious bodily injury, how many incidents are too many? In an article found online, it is stated that “In Aroostook County, encountering animals such as a moose and deer on the roadway is a fact of life.”

If it’s a fact of life, then isn’t it also a no-brainer that if there are too many accidents involving these large animals, it would appear the drivers need some behavior modification. But then again, as is stated in the article “We had 13 [insurance] claims [filed] for Aroostook County over the past three years, and more than half of them were because the employee hit an animal on the roadway.”

So then are we to assume that in three years time there were 7 accidents or 2.3 per year? How does that compare with miles driven etc.? Too many accidents? What’s that mean?

It all kind of reminds me of the somewhat aged country music song, “Too Much Fun.”

Too much fun, what’s that mean?
It’s like too much money, there’s no such thing
It’s like a girl too pretty with too much class
Being too lucky, a car too fast
No matter what they say, I’ve done
But I ain’t never had too much fun

Share

Vermont to Issue 13 Moose Hunting Permits…But Not Really

Vermont says it will allot 13 moose hunting permits. However, unless you are a military veteran, have a terminal illness or are filthy rich, you will not have a chance at obtaining one of these permits. But that is only one issue.

With all the money and research done on moose, this is the best we can come up with?

According to Vermont officials, the state has decided that it will attempt to maintain the moose population, the majority of which is found in the very northeast corner of the state, at 1 moose per square mile in order to “reduce the effects of winter ticks.”

I have an idea there will be few people happy about this move but if now the wildlife managers are going to put more focus on the “health” of wildlife rather than population estimates, it’s difficult to know what to expect into the future.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

Share

To Grow Moose Burn Down the Forest

In a small corner of northeast Minnesota is where you’ll find what is left of a moose herd. A Minnesota newspaper is saying that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) blames the reduction in moose on deer and as an aside note that “some” attribute some of the loss to wolf densities. But there’s an answer to the problem. Burn down the forest!

According to some researchers and biologists, brainworm and ticks are killing moose. (Note – this is of course due to global warming, wink-wink.) If you burn down the forest, the fire kills off the ticks and snails that host the brainworm parasite.

You don’t have to be a Ph.D. to know that moose thrive in forests that are regenerating. Maine has seen the moose population explode where millions of acres of forest were cleared because of an infestation of spruce budworm. Coincidentally, this same act created prime habitat for the snowshoe hare which is the Canada lynx’s favorite food and thus the lynx has made a remarkable resurgence…for now. What happens when the hare habitat is gone? Along with the explosion of the population of the moose, so too did the moose tick or winter tick which is now killing off the too large moose population.

So now there’s an answer for those of you interested in exploiting further the moose population. Think of the money outfitters can make with moose gawking tours. WOW! All we have to do is simply burn down the forests according to how many moose people want to see or hunt.

But at what expense to the rest of the ecosystem?

Share

The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!

Share

Vermont Continues To Reduce Moose Permit Allotments

It appears that the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife has decided, once again, to cut back on moose hunting permits. Where once there were 25 permits issued, authorities are recommending only 14 be issued this year.

A news article said the decision is based on the continued reduction of the moose herd because of, “…infestations of ticks and brain worms believed to be caused by the warming climate.”

If this was a game where you could buy a clue, the clue to buy would be this: So long as fish and wildlife departments continue to wallow in the deep manure pile of “global warming” they will never find any real answers to wildlife management problems.

Evidently, that’s the easiest mode of operation and are we to now believe the most lucrative?

 

 

Share

Almost All Good News Out of Maine About Moose

According to the Portland Press Herald, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has made a proposal to increase the number of allotted moose hunting permits by 420, with all of that increase in the far northern part of the state – WMD 1-6.

MDIFW is still estimating the state’s moose population at between 50,000 and 70,000 (far too high) but we mustn’t forget that increasing moose permits to 2,500 is a far cry from the over 4,000 permits allotted by chance in 2013.

However, is there hope on our horizon? Is the MDIFW, and in particular the moose biologists, beginning to see things a bit differently? Maybe. Let’s review some of the comments found in this article.

In the order that they appear: First, “A 20 percent increase is very conservative,” said Judy Camuso, wildlife division director for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “We’re doing it in the core moose range in Maine where we have excellent survival among cow moose – around 90 percent.” Yes, 20% is very small but it is a step in the right direction. I wanted to point out to readers that the remainder of the quote is actually quite meaningless. In pointing out the need to raise moose permits “in core moose range,” Camuso says that is where they find “excellent survival among cow moose.”

Excellent survival means nothing if we don’t know how “survival” is defined in this context. Example: generally if a biologist speaks of calf survival rates, it’s most often based on a yearling calf surviving the winter – recruitment. To speak of cow survival does that mean one winter or for the average lifespan of a female moose? It is important to know.

Second, we read, “Camuso said state biologists are already talking about increasing permits in 2019 dramatically in at least one hunting district where there has been higher calf mortality because of winter tick infestation. Such an increase would be used as a test to see whether culling the moose population in areas with a higher incidence of winter ticks can lead to a healthier herd.” (Emphasis added)

Now that you’ve picked yourself up off the floor, read further: “Winter ticks play a big part in calf survival,” Camuso said. “In the (more southerly) areas of moose range calf mortality is high. Higher densities of a host species usually perpetuates the parasite. And climate is absolutely a part of the equation.” (Emphasis added)

I have to disagree somewhere here. Upon a considerable amount of research on the winter ticks, it would be dishonest to state that climate is “absolutely” a part of winter tick survival. Maine’s climate is not absolutely an influencing factor for winter ticks. Weather phenomenon may play a limited roll in tick survival but it is certain that availability of a host blood meal (moose) is of ABSOLUTE importance.

Third, With any wildlife population, when there are too many animals on the landscape it’s not a good thing,” Camuso said. “Based on the public feedback from polling, people in Maine support a healthy population, even if that means fewer moose.” (Emphasis added)

It is refreshing to actually hear wildlife biologists expressing to the mainstream press that “too many animals…is not a good thing.” If true, it is equally refreshing to learn that people in Maine support fewer moose, if it means healthier moose. Do they really mean that? Do they understand what they are saying?

It is seldom, like almost never, that any wildlife biologist would even suggest that there are limits to the number of pounds of apples you can put in a 5-pound sack. If this proposed test is to take place in a WMD that has a lot of moose – reducing the population to moose to see if it mitigates the tick infestation – showed it to be true in controlling ticks, this would surely upset the global warming applecart. It is for that reason I see little hope that such a test would amount to much of anything, but I guess one can only hope. The myth of global warming is so deeply entrenched in everyone’s way of thinking, it is hopeless to think any of this will change.

However, this news comes as good news – more moose permits to lower population numbers in some areas, and a test area to see if reducing moose numbers reduces tick numbers. I hope MDIFW doesn’t keep the results a secret.

Share

Moose Ticks: When Evidentiary Truth Is Pounding In Your Face

Yankee Magazine has another article on the Climate Change blame game as to why the winter/moose tick (Dermacentor albipictus) is so numerous and killing so many moose. Provided that ignorance continues to rule and all honest evidence is ignored because of a romantic obsession with man-caused climate change, no answers will be found with the exception of those sought after, i.e. new-science scientism.

I am not alone in my contention that the reason that Maine has so many moose ticks, killing so many animals, is because there are simply too many moose.

In this edition of Yankee Magazine, the author and many of those interviewed for the article provide an honest person with all the evidence that supports the substantial theory that the population of moose in Maine is too high and has been in other states.

That population in Maine is coming down as we speak because the ticks have done the job that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) could have done mitigating the unnecessary suffering of the animals and waste of good food by refusing the opportunity for Maine residents to hunt them, while artificially ballooning the moose population to satisfy the misled social demands.

Let me take the time for you to present the statements made throughout this article (it is in written form and not digital) that only a blind person (or one with an agenda) cannot or will not see that points a big fat finger at the fact that the number of moose ticks is proportional to the number of moose. (Note: I have emboldened the precise statements that clearly support moose population as the regulating factor of winter/moose ticks.)

“In the late 1990s, they [moose] numbered around 7,500 in New Hampshire; now the state’s population is estimated at 3,500. In Vermont, a high of 5,000 just over a decade ago has fallen by nearly two-thirds to the current estimate, 1,750. And while biologists are working on the updated numbers for Maine – which in 2012 was home to an estimated 76,000 – ‘there are definitely fewer moose,’ said Lee Kantar.”

It must be said that the author of this article linked to, as all others that come before, in pointing out the substantial decreases in the number of moose in New England, blame it squarely on the moose tick. However, the blame then goes to Climate Change rather than seeking the truth as to the reason for the increase in moose ticks.

Throughout the article, there are numerous references to moose ticks and climate change and it is clear that neither the author nor the information provided by those interviewed, indicates to us that they have any honest knowledge of the winter tick. I have stated before that the studies continue in numerous states about the moose and what’s killing it. It appears the general consensus is that it is the moose tick and yet any association of the moose tick and moose mortality is ONLY discussed concerning false conclusions based on myths perpetuated by climate alarmists who want only to blame Climate Change for everything, including their shortcomings of honest scientific processing.

There are several studies about the moose tick but nobody in this article has knowledge of them evidently. All the garbage that is written as to how and why global warming is the cause of moose tick growth, is not true and contradicts those studies that show those factors that cause growth and decline of the tick. Please read this article!

But let’s not let any facts get in the way of a good piece of fiction based on global warming.

Let me continue with the statements found in the article.

(It was in 1992) “At the time, ‘bad tick years were infrequent, and the moose population was still increasing.”

“It wasn’t until five years later, though, that she [Kristine Rines N.H. moose biologist] spotted her first tick-infested moose in New Hampshire. ‘Then we started noticing slight declines in our moose population, and I assume it was probably related to ticks.'” 

“Winter ticks were the primary cause of moose mortality in Northern New Hampshire, where moose density (and therefore tick density) is highest.”

The denial of the obvious continues as the author wallows in global warming and how slight variations in climate/weather is the only cause of more ticks. Burying one’s head in the sand is the mark of today’s scientists as well as writers.

“In parts of New Hampshire…the calf mortality numbers have been sobering. In 2014, more than 60 percent of the collared calves died; by 2016, it was up to 80 percent. (Toward the end of the year, though, Pekins will send me a bit of good news: The mortality rate among New Hampshire’s moose calves last Spring was only 30 percent).”

The author explains the reasoning for this as due to weather/climate issues and nothing to do with the fact the moose population has been cut in half.

“As biologists see it, there are just two strategies, both difficult. ‘We can put the brakes on climate change,…or we decrease the numbers of moose by letting winter ticks run their course or by increasing hunting to bring down moose densities.'”

Strange isn’t it? We read of a biologist offering two strategies, one of which is the ONLY thing that we can change, and yet, the focus is always on Climate Change. Are we brainwashed or what?

“Studies have indeed shown that with fewer animals to feed on…tick numbers begin to fall.”

But still, let’s focus on global warming!

In Massachusettes, where moose numbers have remained stable at around 1,000, according to this article, “…winter ticks are present, but don’t seem to be having a big effect.”

Perhaps Massachusettes has outlawed global warming?

Need I remind readers of the difference between 76,000 moose in Maine and 1,000 moose in Massachusettes? And yet it’s still global warming that is the cause. You can put a square peg in a round hole I guess.

The article states that in the Adirondacks of New York, where there are somewhere between 500 and 1,000 moose, the animals are; “virtually tick free.” “You can count the number of winter ticks on an Adirondack moose on less than one hand, probably because there aren’t enough moose to get the tick cycle going.

What is most ignorant – caused by the insistence of attributing everything to Climate Change – is that the author, even though he/she may perhaps see that the numbers of moose attribute to the number of ticks directly, makes the following statement: “The trouble is, nobody really knows how far the moose populations in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine must drop before they reach the ‘sweet spot,’ and the comeback can begin.”

Nothing is learned here. The blinders are on. Climate Change is the controlling factor regardless of what actual evidence tells us about moose ticks. The author, even after sharing what others have said about how moose numbers and ticks correlate, believes that if we reduce the number of moose so ticks abate, then we can grow more moose again and the moose ticks will magically disappear and not come back. How do you correct this circular thinking?

Share

At What Price the Exploitation of the Maine Moose

It appears, from a report filed by the Portland Press Herald, that biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are all excited because surveys have shown there are fewer winter ticks being found on moose than in previous years. Surprisingly enough, this report doesn’t actually give a reason for the event. I was surely expecting global warming…but wait! That’s right! Global warming causes an increase in the number of ticks. Does that mean global cooling is causing a decrease? I doubt that seriously.

From studies quoted by officials at MDIFW, we are told that what influences the amount of tick mortality is sub-zero cold and/or early snows in late September into mid-October. How much of that has Maine, specifically the Moosehead Region, had in the past 5 or 6 years? I thought so.

Here’s an interesting bit of information found in the PPH article. The newspaper and MDIFW should be careful. If they present too much of the wrong information they might just prove that I am right and they are going about their perceived moose problems the wrong way.

This report states that in 2011 there were 76,000 moose in Maine. I would assume they retrieved these numbers from an aerial count that was done at that time. Maine’s head moose biologist told the PPH that at one time MDIFW estimated the moose population at between 60,000 and 90,000. That 90,000 estimate was passed along to the Maine Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee for Inland Fisheries by another Maine biologist. Many agreed with the assessment of 90,000 or greater, than 60,000.

It was an official estimate that Maine’s moose population in 1999 was 29,000. Was there any talk of winter ticks killing moose then? If my memory doesn’t fail me, I recall sending an email (can’t seem to put my hands on it at the moment) to MDIFW asking about their thoughts on the effects of winter ticks on moose. I was at the time undergoing some research on diseases that affected wild ungulates. The response I got might surprise you. They said that they were aware of winter ticks on moose, that those ticks might “bother” the moose some, but certainly did not kill any of them. We all learn…don’t we?

To the point. Few would argue the fact that around 2012, give or take, Maine’s moose population was at the highest probably ever. Few would argue that since that time, the moose population has been decreasing. Did it drop from 90,000 to a current guesstimate of 50,000 – 70,000? At least!

Forget the numbers. It is conceivable that Maine’s moose population has been cut in half. I doubt that many would argue that from the period of time when people were tripping over moose, to now, there has been a very significant reduction in the moose population.

In the PPH article, it states that tick counts on surveyed moose have decreased 68% from this same period last year. So, what’s causing the decline? Unless someone can provide accurate data that can definitively explain this decline in ticks, there can be only one reasonable, common sense answer – something that should have been learned in Biology 101.

When moose populations reached an estimated high of 90,000, all hell broke loose. Unfortunately, all this “hell” was blamed on global warming. It is a reasonable explanation that such a large moose population resulted in a marked increase in the winter ticks’ resource of questing for a blood meal for the winter. As I have attempted to point out, Biology 101 teaches that too many animals cramped into too small space results in the growth, spread, and perpetuation of disease. Nothing new here.

Because all have focused on global warming, failure to adequately understand the phenomenon at work, Mother Nature took over, growing winter ticks in order to kill the population of moose. As the moose population began to decline, it wasn’t too long before we began to witness the reduction in ticks. Nothing new here. We are now seeing a 68% reduction in ticks found on moose during winter.

I doubt that MDIFW biologists will admit this or perhaps even consider it in drawing conclusions from their ongoing moose study. If we use their same explanation that climate change (global warming) is causing ticks to grow in uncontrolled numbers, then the only explanation they can give for this occurrence is global cooling. Will they see the direct correlation between moose population and tick population? For the sake of the moose, one can only hope.

I recently expressed a desire to see wildlife departments nationwide to end the practice of making management decisions based on social demands, especially when those decisions become detrimental to the health and/or sustainability of a species. Hunters understand that if numbers of moose, deer, bear, or any other game animal, gets too low, hunting will cease. In the case of moose, the numbers are too high and need to be reduced to mitigate winter ticks. Will greedy guides and moose watching businesses get it? We can be the responsible managers or let Mother Nature continue to force moose calves to die a slow, agonizing death from anemia and exposure.

Unfortunately, as was brought up in the PPH article, guides and outfitters are hoping the MDIFW will figure out a way to kill the ticks while at the same time growing the herd bigger and bigger because the animal “puts a lot of money into the state.” At what expense to the moose are we now driven to its exploitation for profit?

My only hope is that after all the time and money spent on this moose study, biologists will figure it out. But, I doubt that is going to happen. I think it is far beyond the point that any modern-day biologist can get beyond the myth of global warming as being the cause of everything.

It’s really sad a bodes terribly for the future of wildlife management.

Share

Insistence on Global Warming As the Culprit of Increased Winter Ticks

There is no end to this and I suspect it will continue – the constant ignorant echo-chambering of global warming is going to kill all of us and everything that lives. Damn global warming and damn the computers people have become addicted to that creates fake “computer modeling” and then is plastered throughout cyberspace as an effective means of brainwashing the masses into believing that if man was simply killed off, Nirvana would take over.

A recent article in the Bangor Daily News (Maine) contained information about a Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont ongoing moose study. Any discussion of this study inevitably brings up the subject of moose ticks. It’s kind of a no-brainer that vast amounts of winter ticks, also called moose ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) are killing moose – perhaps too many moose.

The article states information they claim is what limits the growth of winter ticks: “Late summer drought, which kills tick eggs, and early snowfall, which kills larval ticks before they attach to a host like a moose.” Unfortunately, as always, this is misleading information but works well with selling news copies. Also, unfortunately, this nonsense is repeated incessantly throughout all media to a point where people, including wildlife biologists, believe only what they read in the Media.

If you believe the studies and quote information from those studies, then doesn’t it make sense that you should believe everything that’s in the studies?

Late summer drought CAN have an effect on tick larvae survival. It may also have an effect on tick egg survival. Regardless, that effect is quite minimal in the grand scheme of things…that is if you want to believe the studies where these quotes come from. In addition, “early snowfall” might kill tick larvae in a roundabout way, but most likely the event itself will not kill ticks in an all-of-a-sudden happening. That doesn’t stop the ignorance and dishonesty.

One such study tells about drought and snow and cold and its effects on the survival of the winter tick larvae. It has all the regurgitated echo-chamber scientism, graphs, bells, whistles and even information on the use of “computer modeling” in arriving at certain conclusions. I guess left out of these media echo-chamber discussions are important statements like: “While alterations in drought may influence distribution of the winter tick, climate conditions, especially temperature and snowfall in the spring and fall seasons, seem to be the major determinants of northern expansion of D. albipictus.”

Take notice that drought “MAY” influence tick distribution. However, what does this study say about temperatures? It says that the most influential factors in the destruction of winter tick larvae are high and low temperature exposures. For example, direct exposure of 6 hours to low temperatures of -13 F cause tick larvae to begin dying off. And, high temperatures over 114 F will do the same. Media doesn’t bother to read any of these studies and so they rely on what somebody else tells them who also never reads and examines the studies in their entirety.

What do these temperatures mean? When tick larvae are on the ground, prior to climbing vegetation as part of their “questing” event, they are commonly found in the leaves where temperatures effectively never reach 114 degrees F or -13 F, say nothing about doing so for 6 hours or more.

Once the tick larvae leave the protection of the leaf litter, they begin climbing vegetation where they search for a host, i.e the moose. Their “quest” is a host for the winter where they remain mostly protected from climate conditions hiding out in about a 100-degree climate until Spring.

In late Summer and early Fall, during the tick’s quest, they are exposed to the elements while waiting in the vegetation. It is during this time that the tick is vulnerable. What we are never told is that the tick at this stage is most vulnerable to wind. Yes, that’s right, wind. Wind can blow the ticks from the vegetation and return them to the ground. They must then begin their slow ascent back up the vegetation. They might miss their ride. It could kill them in the end.

They are also vulnerable to cold temperatures. In Maine, during September and October, if the tick larvae are exposed to temperatures at or below -13-degrees F for six hours or more, according to this one study, they will begin to die off. If early snow comes and remains on the ground, it will end the quest cycle which in turn will limit the number of ticks waiting to attach themselves to a passing moose. Obviously, a shortened or a lengthened quest cycle will alter the number of animals that take up a tick for the winter.

So, please leave your comments below with data that shows when and how often areas of Maine have seen these climatic conditions that will kill tick larvae in September and October. Hint: I won’t be holding my breath while waiting.

But it’s global warming that is causing the increase in winter ticks. That’s we hear perpetually. Okay, let’s play their game. If global warming, as spoken and written about in the Media, is real, then according to them the average temperature in a place like Maine will increase gradually anywhere from 1 – 5 degrees F over the next half-century. With the information I just gave, and the fact that more than likely the authors of this study are believers in global warming (they indicate as such in their study report) how can it pass the straight face test that small average temperature rises are what is causing ticks to increase in the proportions that they have?

Missing from this study, as we often find in about all studies rooted in global warming mythology, is any discussion about how the number of moose effect the number of ticks. We know from what has been learned that the winter tick could never survive if it didn’t have a host. This study indicates that riding on the back of a moose is the safest place in the world for tick larvae to be. When we examine the life cycle of the winter tick, you don’t have to be an over-paid scientist to understand that to kill the tick is to eliminate any one part of its life cycle. Not much we can do about climatic conditions…no, seriously, there isn’t. Get over it. Grow up! There is so much separation in reality between the conditions of drought, high and low temperatures (in Maine) and the survival of the tick larvae that it appears a waste of time trying to blame it all on global warming when perhaps the answer is really very simple.

I am thus reminded of what a veterinary scientist said not very long ago about moose and moose ticks: “Once (winter ticks are) introduced in a moose population in an area, the only known way to control it is to reduce the moose density, especially calves, so that there are no hosts available,” she said. “It would require an antler-less hunt or even a cull of calves and yearlings, which would not be something that would be easy to sell to the public.”

I have, and will continue to hear, all the nonsense about how, because I am a hunter, I just want to hunt and kill moose. Not exactly true. For example, I am a hunter. I hunt almost 100% only deer. I have never hunted moose, nor have I ever applied for a moose permit to do so. I have no plans for my future to do that either. I like moose meat. I like it a lot. I like deer venison more.

Consider, however, the ignorance of the statement that all I want to do is hunt moose or that all I want is for hunters to hunt moose. Once the moose herd was reduced to levels where events of winter ticks stop their epizoodic levels, hunting of moose will return to a level to maintain a moose herd. There might be a short burst of increased moose hunting to reduce the population, but certainly, it will not continue.

As far as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife managing moose numbers at levels to please the public to be able to see moose, it is time to end that dangerous practice. Growing moose so people can drive around in climate-controlled autos and view moose, needs to end and end now. Look what it is doing to our moose. Are we to allow 50% of our moose calves to suffer a slow death so someone in an SUV can gawk at a moose? Get off your lazy ass and walk in the woods to see moose the way some of the rest of us do.

But nothing will change. Obsessed with global warming and the money and convenient excuses that come with it, enables the creation of more and more useful idiots.

However I must say,

DON’T GO LOOK!

 

Share