More Wolf Mythology

By Jim Beers

ONCE UPON A TIME….

1. From the Pinedale WY News re: Washington State Wolves:

“”Wolf populations are increasing faster than anyone had imagined,” the legislators said in their April 23 letter. They urged the commission to act quickly “to maintain social tolerance for gray wolves in northeast Washington in the timeliest manner for residents.”"

Conclusion: Evidently those “Beta” (are there “gamma”, “delta”, “epsilon” and all the way to “omega” wolves?) wolves didn’t get the memo (that ONLY ALPHA wolves breed) and have been sneaking out behind the woodpile and doing naughty (as well as ‘undocumented’ things per our august wildlife professionals) things resulting in more wolf pups than the “Alphas” alone are making.

You couldn’t make up this stuff if you tried.

2. From this morning’s St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press:

Minnesota: Moose study confirms high calf mortality rate

“The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources captured 49 moose calves and fitted them with GPS transmitter collars. Within days of finishing their work, 22 of the newborns already had died.”

“Most were killed by bears and wolves.”

“We knew that we would lose a lot of calves quickly,” DNR lead moose researcher Glenn DelGiudice said. “But to see it happening in real time like this is all new for us.”

“We used to see a ratio of about 100 cows to 40 or 45 calves each winter. But in recent years that’s been more like 20 or 30 calves, and that’s not sustainable,” Moen said.

“DelGiudice’s $424,000 study is part of a two-pronged effort to find out why the northeast Minnesota moose herd is plummeting.”

Conclusion: I have written six articles since moving to Minnesota five years ago about the effect the wolf population explosion was having on Minnesota moose. Newspapers refused to run Letter to the Editor about them. I sent copies of the articles to friends and acquaintances that hunted and fished in the State and almost universally they didn’t want to talk about it or told me that I didn’t know what I was talking about. For years The August and Honorable (May Gaia Be Praised) Minnesota DNR and their subcontractors at the newspapers and at “the” University have vehemently (and to me laughingly) denied that predation from any source was responsible for the steady disappearance of moose as wolves increased.

The reason for this decades-long subterfuge was and is that the DNR would have had to KILL [oooohhh!] the predators in order to maintain moose hunting and thereby offend their new greenie clients. This was and is as evident as the nose on your face. Like the old canard, “the beatings will continue until morale improves”; people are to be managed for wildlife: those that suggest that wildlife are to be managed for people are to be marginalized or purged from the system!

So the DNR recently closed all Moose hunting (forever??) in Minnesota for lack of moose. To say that a moose permit was THE MOST-PRIZED license a Minnesotan could get (the odds were equivalent to winning the Lottery) would be an understatement. Now this “poor” researcher (he only got $424,000 to “discover” what any Minnesotan with half a brain in a wolf country bar already knew) admits “this is all new for us.”

Any Minnesotan could have asked why the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd in Montana disappeared; why the Lolo elk herd in Idaho disappeared; and why Upper Rocky Mt. moose are now going the way of the Dodo bird and Passenger Pigeon: ALL AS WOLVES BECAME ESTABLISHED AND THEIR POPULATIONS EXPLODED IN THOSE ENVIRONS! My oh my, what a coincidence.

This skit belongs on Prairie Home Companion in a bar conversation with all those guys hitting themselves on the forehead with those new plastic beer mugs that just replaced the old heavy glass ones.

PS In all honesty, Minnesota is no different than most other states in worshiping every word that drips from the mouths of “the wildlife” boys and girls. I just got back in from Iowa and they are setting a new low in this regard as it seems more and more state fish and wildlife agencies race to the bottom as they snivel at the feet of federal bureaucrats and their promises of money and jobs.

God Help Us.

Jim Beers
1 June 2013

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

All My Bags Are Packed, I’m Ready to Go

Two moose hangin’ out by the fence near the Anchorage, Alaska airport. I really don’t think they are intending to fly anywhere, just in case some might think I’m serious.

Photo by Al Remington

Isle Royale’s “Pristine Wilderness?”

I guess it’s time to roll out another story about the insanity that seems to have infected so many concerning wolves and moose on Michigan’s Isle Royale. I’ll spare readers much of the details of the history but in a brief remark state that scientists have been “studying” the relationship between wolves and moose on the island for many years. At issue now is that the inbred wolves are all dying off and the cult of wolf worshipers are near flogging themselves over what to do; let “nature” take it’s course or bring in more wolves?

Perhaps the most important aspect of this so-called study, is the belief by those conducting the studies and the hundreds of thousands of brain dead followers, that somehow, wolves and moose isolated on an island in the midst of Lake Superior, resembles an “ecosystem” found just about anywhere else in the world. But then again, it is impossible to try to convince “The True Believers” that any of this matters.

Dr. Charles Kay, wildlife ecologist at Utah State University, in an email exchange, had this to say about Isle Royale and the wolf and moose studies.

The entire study has been a waste of time because it is a unique situation and the results are NOT APPLICABLE ANY PLACE ELSE IN NORTH AMERICA——and anyone who says it is applicable to other areas, is committing scientific fraud!

This is much like Dr. Valerius Geist’s title he bestows upon the believers of “balance of nature.” He calls it “intellectual garbage.”

To give you an example of the insanity behind Isle Royale, and all the clap trap that gets repeated and perpetuated, you are welcome to read a fairly recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (snicker), written by Paul Voosen.

There’s little worth repeating and bringing up in the article but I would like to point out a couple of things that were written, which I think is a reflection of the entire article’s inaccuracies and unbelievable commentary. The author writes:

The service [National Park Service] debated what to do [about an outbreak of parvovirus] then, as it wrangled with fears about interfering in a pristine wilderness. But given global warming, it’s hard today to see any wilderness as pristine. (emboldening added)

Pristine wilderness? Are you kidding me? And is this author intimating, or perhaps he’s just coming straight out and saying so, that there are no longer any “pristine wildernesses” because of global warming? When anyone writes this sort of stuff, doesn’t it give cause to question everything else written? It should!

It is fraud to claim Isle Royale as a “pristine wilderness”, in the 1980s or much of anytime prior to nearly 6,000 years ago. If you knew the history of the island and called it “pristine” that’s fraud. If you don’t know about the history then that’s a reflection of lazy ignorance and poor journalism. Perhaps I should blame that on global warming; something environmentalists can relate to.

Here’s what Wikipedia, that source even lazy people use for reference, has to say about the history of Isle Royale.

In prehistoric times, large quantities of copper were mined on Isle Royale and the nearby Keweenaw Peninsula. The region is scarred by ancient mine pits and trenches up to 20 feet deep. Carbon-14 testing of wood remains found in sockets of copper artifacts indicates that they are at least 5700 years old. In Prehistoric Copper Mining in the Lake Superior Region, published in 1961, Drier and Du Temple estimated that over 1.5 billion pounds of copper had been mined from the region. However, David Johnson and Susan Martin contend that their estimate was based on exaggerated and inaccurate assumptions……….

In the mid-1840s, a report by Douglass Houghton, Michigan’s first state geologist, set off a copper boom in the state, and the first modern copper mines were opened on the island.[9] Evidence of the earlier mining efforts was everywhere, in the form of many stone hammers, some copper artifacts, and places where copper had been partially worked out of the rock but left in place. The ancient pits and trenches led to the discovery of many of the copper deposits that were mined in the 19th century.[7] The remoteness of the island, combined with the small veins of copper, caused most of the 19th century mines to fail quickly.[citation needed] Between the miners and commercial loggers, much of the island was deforested during the late 19th century.

I think any idiot can plainly see that Isle Royale was no “pristine wilderness” nor was the reason for that caused by global warming.

In addition to the false claim that Isle Royale is or once was a “pristine wilderness”, according to Dr. Charles Kay, there were never any wolves or moose on the island.

…before Whites, Native Americans ran the entire island—-and there were NO MOOSE OR WOLVES only a few caribou.

The important thing to remember about the years of studies conducted on wolves and moose on Isle Royale; this information and knowledge gathered can then be used on all the other islands in North America that have wolves and moose on them, exactly like Isle Royale. Now that’s important stuff right there!

Wolves Cause Stress and Ignorance in Politicians

Is that a catchy enough headline? If read in one way, it would appear that I’m suggesting that wolves cause stress and ignorance in politicians. It could be read several different ways, but in reality, wolves cause stress in the wild prey animals they constantly harass and domestic critters such as cattle. Now I would like to think that wolves don’t cause politicians to be ignorant, although sometimes I have my doubts. The ignorance in politicians, like with all people, comes by choice.

Yesterday I wrote about the early stages of a study being conducted in Minnesota in attempts to determine what is killing off the state’s moose population. Preliminary indications from the study show that there’s a possibility (okay so I’m being cautious here) that gray wolves might be killing too many moose. GASP!

Alright! I’ll dispense with the theatrics. In my commentary I asked these questions, “Again, not that this assessment is wrong, but for God’s sake do any of these researchers have an understanding of stress factors on moose, the result of which comes from the mere presence of wolves? Have they no elementary knowledge that stressed out moose will not eat as they should in order to gain the needed fat supplies to get through the cold winters? Or that the body fat will come off quickly and/or never be put on due to constant harassment?”

In my email box this morning, my good friend, Will Graves, had sent me a link to an article about this topic and within that article is a link to a study completed about 3 years ago on the effects of stress put on elk and cattle caused by the presence of wolves.

Follow all these links and you’ll find helpful information on the subject of stress caused by wolves.

I’m sure someone will chime in that the study is about stress placed on elk and cattle not moose. I recognize that and while I’m not so ignorant as to not know that there is a decent chance there will be differences in how moose react to the presence of wolves, much in the same way as was pointed out in the study the differences between cattle and elk. The point is that there’s probably a better than reasonable chance that the same stresses are placed on moose. How they act and react will vary.

As I pointed out in my article yesterday, I have concern that the study that is underway in Minnesota will be incomplete and perhaps inconclusive if all possibilities that might be causing higher than normal moose mortality aren’t fully explored. If researchers aren’t looking at possible stress factors and the degree of hurt put on the moose, then are we to hope they might stumble upon it? The same can be said for disease, of which I also brought up in yesterday’s article.

If I and millions of other people can so easily find studies on these topics, I’m sure the researchers in Minnesota can as well. And when they do, let’s hope they dispense with the biases and hoped-for outcomes and get to the truth of the matter.

And now on to the ignorance of politicians. Also in my inbox this morning was a link to another story about how the Minnesota Senate Environment and Energy Committee passed, by a 7-6 vote, a proposal that would put a five-year moratorium on any further gray wolf hunts.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chris Eaton, said this about her reasons for crafting this act: “I grew up hunting,” Eaton said.” I have nothing against hunting. My concern is for the survival of the wolf. I believe that when you put these kind of resources into protecting a species that it doesn’t make sense to automatically start a recreational hunt once they are delisted.”

So let’s examine the ignorance. “I have nothing against hunting,” she stated. It is obvious to any clown that her statement is a falsehood. If she had “nothing” against hunting, she wouldn’t have “something” against it. She’s against hunting the wolf; an act that has proven itself for nearly a century to be responsible form of wildlife management.

Easton says her concern is for the survival of the wolf. Boldly stated, if that were true then she would have an understanding of the importance of the proper management of the animal. Aspects of that management include the wide and unnecessary destruction of other wildlife species, as well as domestic livestock and family pets, due to too many wolves. Does Eaton have any understanding that an overgrown population of wolves greatly increases the spread of more than 30 different diseases the wolf carries? These incidents of disease greatly increase as populations of wolves go up.

She seems to be lamenting about the possibilities of the waste that might come from the years and effort put into protecting the wolf and somehow associates that with them all being destroyed by offering a hunting season on the animal. Does Ms. Eaton have any knowledge of the history of the wolf in Minnesota? They have been protected for at least 40 years and the population of wolves is the highest the state has ever had.

Here’s a slew of other questions Eaton needs to answer, and perhaps she already has. How many wolves are enough? What is the average growth rate of wolves in Minnesota? What are the negative effects caused by wolves? Why did Minnesota agree to have a hunting season on wolves? Was it because hunters were hounding the state’s fish and game to go hunt wolves? Or was it because all scientific data and on the ground indications told officials it would be a good management decision? Why a five-year moratorium? Why not one or ten? Who is behind your effort to promote this bill? Why don’t you believe the information given to you as to why Minnesota needs a wolf hunt? How much longer do wolves in Minnesota need to be protected to satisfy Sen. Eaton and those who are actually behind the moratorium and what is the scientific basis of that determination?

Hopefully this bill will be dead on arrival when it hits the Minnesota Senate floor and managing the animal can be left up to fish and wildlife officials rather than ignorant politicians.

Are Wolves Causing Low Body Fat in Moose in Minnesota?

The Duluth News Tribune has a story from yesterday, March 18, 2013, that headlines that wolves are taking a toll on Minnesota moose; a headline that many of us have waited for for quite some time. But perhaps the headline is a bit premature. Further data collection and research might tell a better and more complete story……..or will it?

It’s always difficult to get an accurate assessment of events such as wildlife studies from newspaper accounts and I don’t think I need explain why. So, from this one newspaper account, I would like to point out just one part of it that presents a confusing and perhaps misleading bunch of statements. This may be intentional bias or not. I don’t really know, but it does little to solve a problem.

Here’s a snippet taken from the article:

Of the two animals that died from other causes, both appear to be victims of wolf attacks. One had been mostly eaten, and the other had injuries from a wolf attack but had not been eaten. From a post-mortem investigation at the scene, it appears wolves got the big cow’s calf and then left the area before the cow died, Butler said.

“She died from secondary issues after being wounded by wolves. … It was pretty cool how (the crews) went in there and figured out what happened,” Butler said.

While wolves were the ultimate cause of death for those moose, Butler said both of them, and even some of the moose that died from capture-related stress, had lower-than-usual body fat in what has been a fairly normal, if not mild, winter in moose country.

“When we are capturing them in January, that’s early enough in winter that they should still have some good body fat, and three of these didn’t. That’s not normal,” Butler said.

A reduction in nutrition, possibly from warm weather in the summer when moose are too hot to eat, or from habitat issues, is one theory why moose are having problems making it through winter.

It’s not so much that this information may be perceived as incorrect as it is that it is incomplete. In addition it’s a continuation of the perpetuated bias found in most all media accounts of why moose are disappearing in Minnesota. For years people have questioned this phenomenon and for years have refused to place any of the blame on the presence of wolves. The blame has always been on global warming. And what is near a tragic event is that perhaps their answer is staring the scientists right in the face as might be indicated from this account.

Two moose are said to have been killed as the result of wolves but the researchers seem to be marveling at the discovery that the moose have lower than expected body fat. Once again, the blame is put on the possibility that it is warmer summer time temperatures, along with reduced habitat, that is causing it. Again, not that this assessment is wrong, but for God’s sake do any of these researchers have an understanding of stress factors on moose, the result of which comes from the mere presence of wolves? Have they no elementary knowledge that stressed out moose will not eat as they should in order to gain the needed fat supplies to get through the cold winters? Or that the body fat will come off quickly and/or never be put on due to constant harassment?

It doesn’t end here either. Also included in the snippet above is the account of the cow moose’s calf that was eaten while the cow, having been attacked also by the wolves, was left to die. What is just as infuriating to me is that not only do I see the seemingly blind ignorance of not attributing low body fat to stress from wolves, it also appears that the researchers can’t understand why there is such a low calf recruitment of the moose.

Some people don’t understand that it isn’t necessarily the adult moose that need to be killed off to destroy a population. All you need do is reduce the calf recruitment, that is circumstances that do not allow for calf moose to live beyond their first year, to a level where sustainability becomes problematic. When calf recruitment nears zero, one can expect to find precipitous drops in total moose populations.

In the account shown above, are we not seeing the preferred diet of the wolves? Is not the young calves, obviously easier for the wolves to kill than a full grown moose, the cuisine of choice? And if this is true, why then is it some seemingly obtuse puzzlement to understand why moose calf recruitment is in trouble?

It is hopeful, yet I remain skeptical, that a completion of this study will get to the bottom of the problem. The skepticism comes when one reads accounts such as this that makes people like me see that researchers are seeking a pre-hoped-for outcome.

And speaking of incomplete studies and information, will we also from this study, get any work done on all the diseases that moose suffer from; one of them being hydatid cysts found in the lungs that can have not only health issues, but lessens a moose’s ability to escape predation. If they want to know what’s killing the moose, all factors must be considered. Otherwise, these people will just stick to the claims of global warming and loss of habitat; which may be their goal anyway.

Tiny Increments on Educating People About Echinococcus Granulosus in Maine

On February 20, 2013, I posted a press release sent out by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) about the discovery of echinococcus granulosus (E.G.) cysts found in moose. You can read that press release by clicking this link.

In addition to posting the press release, I also offered information about the disease to help readers obtain more knowledge and a better understanding of the real threats from this disease, frankly because I didn’t think the MDIFW press release contained enough information to help people make an honest assessment of the risks, which should become part of their decision making on outdoor excursions as well as proper care and prevention around the house.

With the help of a reader in finding it, the MDIFW posted some information on their website about E.G. While still inadequate, a small increment of changes were added to the original press release so positive actions are taking place.

To help readers better understand these tiny changes, I have posted the same information as can be found on the MDIFW website but took the liberty to highlight a few things there were added or omitted.

Echinococcus granulosus in Maine Moose

Over the last three years Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been collaborating with the University of Maine Animal Health Lab in examining the presence of lungworms (Dictyocaulus spp.) in moose. Lungworms have been noted in moose that have been found dead in late winter with heavy winter tick loads and the combination of both parasites has been implicated as a cause of calf mortality.

This past fall, students once again increased sampling intensity of moose lungs from harvested animals. This led to the University of Maine-Animal Health Lab, finding Echinococcus granulosus (E.G.) cysts in some moose lungs. EG is a very small tapeworm that has a two part lifecycle; one in canids (coyotes/foxes/domestic dogs) and the second in moose. There are several known genotypes of this tapeworm, and genetic testing of the Maine tapeworms found that this EG is the northern, or least pathogenic, form. Although Echinococcus granulosus can infect humans, the form that is known to do so most often is the sheep-dog genotype. Finding the northern, wild-type form of EG in moose in Maine suggests that likely wild canids in Maine are infected and that possibly domestic dogs are infected as well, and that fact may allow for human exposure to this parasite. It is also very likely that we have coexisted with these tapeworms for years with no apparent problems having not actively looked for them prior to this work.

The adult tapeworm lives in the intestines of the canid host, while the larval form lives in the lungs or liver of an infected moose. Humans may become infected by [original press release included the word 'ingesting'] eggs of the parasite, which can be picked up by contact with canid feces.

In conjunction with the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention and University of Maine Animal Health Lab/Cooperative extension, we recommend [original release used 'the Department'] the following:

* Hunters avoid harvesting sick or injured animals. [This was added]
* Hunters and trappers should always wear rubber or latex gloves when field dressing animals.
* Wild game meat should be thoroughly cooked.
* People should avoid contact with dead wild animals
* People should avoid contact with carnivore feces [This was added]
* After consultation with your veterinarian, regularly deworm pets with a product that works on tapeworms [what is emboldened was added]
* Do not let domestic pets eat the organs from either hunter-harvested animals or from “road kill” animals [This entire warning was added]
* Practice good personal hygiene-wash hands and contaminated clothes, especially after handling animals or anything that could be contaminated with feces [entire warning was added]

On a positive note, it appears that the MDIFW is getting better educated about E.G. I will continue to send them information in hopes they are willing to gain better understanding and knowledge.

What hasn’t been brought out in either the original press release or this information posted on MDIFW’s website, is that if moose have these E.G. cysts, more than likely the whitetail deer, if they don’t have them now, soon will. As a matter of fact all ungulates are susceptible to E.G. This includes both wild and domestic ungulates.

Gasp! Wolves Eat Moose

Hat Tip to Critter News for the link.

This is a riot! According to the Jackson Hole News & Guide, a recent study showed that wolves enjoy the fine cuisine of moose ala snow in the North Teton area.

Gosh though! I wonder what is killing off the moose in Minnesota. Evidently wolves in Minnesota have not acquired a taste for fresh moose on a cold winter night.

Minnesota Moose Dreamin’

By Jim Beers (republished on this website with permission from the author)

Link:

The following article (Minnesota moose.. hunt suspended)[Link provided above to referred to article] from the front page of today’s St. Paul Paper is worth reading to either make your blood boil or, if you’ve been following the demise of big game hunting in the US, give you a good excuse to shake your head with a wry smile.

There is a reward of a 50-cent coupon to the Wacky Minnesota Gift Store if you can find the word – WOLF – in the article. There is a 25-cent coupon to JoAnns Fabric Store if you can find the words – Echinococcus granulosis or tapeworms spread by wolves (the generic word “parasite” doesn’t count) – in the article.

So, to all you former Montana and Idaho elk hunters now playing violent video games on your kid’s smart phones while they are at school; take note that the Minnesota elk hunt this year (for two isolated and small herds in isolated woods in NW Minnesota where they should be vulnerable to hunting) was a bust. An expected harvest of 23 elk could do no better than 9; calling Sherlock Holmes and Watson. These same DNR/Outdoor Writer Worthies are also mystified about what is going on with the elk as well as the moose.

To all you Yellowstone Park Visitors, this Minnesota moose/elk disappearance practically overnight is credited to unspecified diseases and habitat changes due to global warming just like the missing Yellowstone moose and elk. I refrain from the other reason given by the nicely-uniformed National Park Service “experts” that the moose and elk are mysteriously “staying in the backcountry” since Minnesota “backcountry” is both inhabited and hunted thoroughly so such lies are hard to make. Of course wolves are blameless to all these government wolf-manipulators for their no longer hidden agendas from killing hunting to making gun ownership more problematic.

Why no less an authority than the “head biologist for the fish and wildlife department of the Grand Portage band of Lake Superior Chippewa” is quoted as saying, “Parasites, disease and habitat are all potential factors” (i.e. in the demise of moose). I refrain at this point from using another quote from the article that would be out-of-place and unfair –“That’s insane”.

Since I moved to Minnesota 5 years ago I have spoken and written about how Minnesota wolves are at their highest populations and densities in the past century for the past 20 years since the federal government ripped state (and therefore state resident) wolf management from a compliant state wildlife agency over 40 years ago. I have made pen pals of the outdoor writers to their great amusement and created a reputation with the paper as an hilarious old crank. The high wolf populations being maintained by livestock, dog, deer, moose and elk meat in Minnesota is having the SAME effect that it has in Montana, Idaho, Ontario, Alberta, Alaska, British Columbia, Siberia, Kazakhstan, etc. etc.

The primary Minnesota wolf habitat is and was EXACTLY where the moose and elk lived (note the past tense). The graph of wolf population increase over the past 20 years coincides with the moose/elk population estimate/hunting success rates for the same period. Duh!

Every news article about the missing moose only mentions wolves by way of vilifying those that even suspect wolf depredation as a factor (much less THE factor) as troglodytes that should be locked in the attic with the old uncle that slobbers and passes gas around genteel folks. This writer has been so designated.

So, the rest of the world take note: Alaska abandon your wolf control to maintain moose; Siberia abandon your wolf control to save reindeer; Kazakhstan and Russia abandon your wolf control to save livestock and the old ladies and kids that tend them – All of you look to Minnesota bureaucrats where such losses (except for the old ladies and kids that are too hard to deny) these losses are due to GLOBAL WARMING AND UNDEFINED DISEASES. Stop all that wolf control, until Minnesota determines the REAL REASONS and (along with uniformed US National Park Service Storytellers) reveals the deep dark secrets you have been too dumb to figure out. Keep up your anti-wolf-hunt lawsuits Michiganders and shut down your power plants – Global Warming and Diseases are the enemy, certainly not wolves! Wisconsinites stay cold and in the dark all winter to reduce your carbon footprint to save moose, elk and deer meat for higher wolf population densities to replace hunters and armed citizens while moving rural folks into cities!

Note how an esteemed Minnesota “wildlife research manager for the DNR” “thinks” Ontario is “seeing the same thing”. Thinks? Doesn’t he have a phone? Doesn’t he “think” those are the same woods (albeit measured in kilometers), wolves and moose in the contiguous wolf/moose habitat from central Minnesota to Hudson Bay? Two weeks ago my wife and I had lunch with a great retired Canadian law enforcement officer and his wife. His Ontario hunting camp (a dozen plus guys) was not good at all last year for either moose or deer. His (and his neighbor a retired Ontario wildlife guy) reason? There were wolf tracks and wolves everywhere but they are now killing wolves and coyotes year-around with complete expectation if they kill enough of them and keep killing them the moose and deer hunting will recover hopefully in a few years.

Finally, back in the 1990’s I testified before the US Congress about how US Fish and Wildlife Service hacks stole $45 to 60 Million dollars from the Hunting and Fishing Excise Taxes intended only for State agencies to manage State Fish and Wildlife Resources. This was after Congress had denied USFWS funding for this hair-brained scheme. But undeterred by lawful authority and on a mission for “Gaia” they stole millions from hunters and game management so that federal bureaucrats could capture Canadian wolves, import them illegally and release them without any state concurrence in Yellowstone Park to eliminate ranching, elk, moose and hunting/rural safety in the Upper Rockies states. I was shocked, angered and disgusted at the time as a hunter who still believed that at least the State agencies were still on the hunters’ side but how naive I was for a guy in his fifties. If this Minnesota “Moosegate” debacle is how they are using the excise taxes, USFWS might as well steal it all and if there is any left over after paying themselves bonuses, give it to Garrison Keillor to do a skit on The Prairie Home Companion explaining where all the Minnesota moose and elk and deer and pheasants have gone. At least it will boost the sale of those biscuits in the oil-stained bags and maybe create another non-government job or two to slow the slide in the Minnesota economy.

Jim Beers
7 February 2013

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to: jimbeers7@comcast.net

Apply For Maine Moose Permit And Do Some Complaining While You’re At It

Yes, it’s that time again. Time for those of interest to apply for a chance at a moose permit to hunt moose in Maine. Visit this link at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) website and fill out your application.

And while you’re at the site, take a couple extra minutes to contact the MDIFW Commissioner and let him know that all the money you’ve contributed to be used for growing and maintaining a moose herd isn’t being spent for your benefit. Maine has for years stated there were only 29,000 moose and they carefully thought the process through before deciding how many permits to allot. Well, now that more of our money has been spent the past three years to count moose and MDIFW has decided there are really 76,000 moose, MDIFW, (after giving it careful thought?) has decided to allot an additional, whopping, 430 permits. Golly! Ain’t that swell?

Let’s see. My math is a bit rusty but rattling off some numbers in an empty head I think this shows somewhere around a 60% increase in the estimated number of moose, and yet only perhaps a 12% increase in permits. Does that make sense to you? Do you feel like you’re getting screwed over?

According to the Boston Globe, Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s head moose biologist, explains why hunters, who have footed the moose recovery bill for what now seems a bazillion years, can’t have but a scant 430 permits:

“What some people fail to understand is we have very clear responsibilities for managing moose for a variety of publics, not just hunting,” Kantar said. “Wildlife viewing stands on equal ground, so you need to be cautious on your permit levels, and that means accounting for your unknowns,”

So, let’s get this straight. For the past several years MDIFW believed the state had 29,000 moose and could comfortably (“accounting for your unknowns’) issue 3,725 moose permits. But now with MDIFW believing there are 76,000 moose, only 4,155 permits can be issued…….I assume to make all the rest of the “on equal ground” moose available to the “on equal ground” moose gawkers who contribute nothing to the growth and maintenance of the herd. Oh, wait. That’s right they pay the governor a handful of tax dollars, that, incidentally, do nothing to help out the moose herd. Shucks! Did somehow those “unknowns” get pulled out of somebody’s dark side or is this placating the environmentalists out of fear they will get offended if Maine decides to kill a handful more moose?

Maine sportsmen deserve better than this slap in the face and kick in the groin. Some have applied for a moose permit since the lottery’s inception and have never been drawn. And this is the treatment they get for their persistence? You can’t hunt them even after your investment, but we’ll make sure the moose gawkers get more “equal ground” than hunters get. Pathetic!

Maine’s Coyote Management Plan: Poorly Planned or Planned in Fear? Designed to Fail?

It was nearly 2 weeks ago that I shared with readers some facts about what was taking place on the ground regarding Maine’s Predation Management effort. In that report, it was determined that the cost of dispensing one coyote/wolf had risen to $146.00 from $106.00 last year. This is absolutely no good.

Last year the entire blame of the failure of the program was laid at the feet of a mild winter in which deer didn’t “yard up” and no coyotes in the yard. While an acceptable excuse at the time, what did the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) do to counter this natural phenomenon should it happen again? After all, while mild winters is helpful to the deer, is does nothing about reducing coyote depredation.

Also in the previous report, I included a snowfall map of Maine. It showed some portions of Maine with waist deep snow and others with under a foot. If you look at the latest NOAA snow depth map, one can see that the amount of snow has actually diminished since January 10. This seems to mostly go along with the most recent Predation Management Report and what was said in an email that was sent to me that originated at MDIFW, from John Pratt, Wildlife Management Section Supervisor.

Please find attached an update on this year’s Predation Management effort. Regional biologists maintain weekly contact with program participants to make adjustments as needed and every two weeks we evaluate the effort statewide considering; coyote activity, deer mobility, snow conditions, hunter success, hunter effort and our budget. Based on these factors we have added two more priority areas and a few more program participants.

In general, deer are highly mobile state wide as are coyotes which are observed to be favoring easier prey. Because of good mobility, food abundance and low coyote densities, coyotes are not responding well to bait sites. Per our protocol we continue to monitor these priority areas and remove coyotes as presence and conditions allow. In addition, we closely watch our budget for opportunities to activate additional pre-identified priority areas to maximize our effort.

Conditions can change rapidly and our biologists and participants adjust accordingly. –John

Sounds good doesn’t it? But obviously it is not working. Enough coyotes/wolves are not being killed and the cost per animal keeps rising.

And I do question one particular comment in the above email. Pratt said, “low coyote densities” was one of the things hampering predator control. Should that be better defined to say low coyote densities in deer yards? Or is he trying to convince somebody there aren’t enough coyotes to kill?

So what should be done to control coyotes? Is there a better plan? Of course there is but it is doubtful Mainers will ever see any parts of a better plan due to a number of things; mostly fear combined with indoctrinated beliefs that coyotes, i.e. large predators are “good” for the ecosystem. But let’s not get off track.

Let’s start at the beginning and the first tell tale sign that this so-called plan is doomed to failure. When the reports are sent out, notice if you will in the below report (the latest one I have received) that in the upper right hand corner it is titled, “2012/2013 Predation Management, Interim Update.” Predators should not be “managed.” They need to be controlled. The term management intimates that a species is being taken care of to provide surplus populations for harvest opportunities, i.e. trapping and hunting. Maine, at the present time does not need to be “managing” coyotes for surplus harvest. The goal here, or at least Maine sportsmen were told as such and it’s written in Maine’s Plan for Deer, was to implement a program to reduce the number of coyotes in those areas where deer are struggling to survive. So the question might be asked, is it called management because the MDIFW is actually trying to manage instead of control coyotes or is MDIFW attempting to be politically correct and not offend the animal rights perverts who don’t want their precious dogs killed that are killing deer and other animals, while spreading disease?

I spent some time communicating with trappers and hunters about this program. Some of those I emailed with are participants in the “management” program. What I wanted to find out from these people, because they are representative of those with continuous boots on the ground and have an excellent perspective on what is actually taking place. Having collected those ideas, along with some of my own, I thought I would offer up some suggestions on how to improve this coyote program and turn it into a control program.

But before I get into suggestions, I might point out that suggestions can be damned if the state of Maine is not actually serious about saving the whitetail deer. Talk is cheap but doing what needs to be done, regardless of who it might offend, is what is absolutely necessary to save deer in those regions of Maine severely affected. Anything short of that will not work and it appears MDIFW has that proof right in front of them.

Here are the ideas in no particular order or priority:

* - Establish a set of criteria to use to determine what constitutes a “priority area.” Perhaps MDIFW already has this but it is unknown to me and all those that I communicated with. This leads me to suspect that either there is not established criteria and/or the boots on the ground stakeholders were not sought out in establishing priority areas.

One trapper indicated that he was led to believe MDIFW was using historical deer wintering areas as “priority areas”. It has been over a decade now that I have been writing to explain that deer are a much more adaptive animal than biologists sometimes give them credit for. Going wherever the coyotes are is a must for successful trapping and hunting. In other areas of the country, ungulates are changing their habits because of the threat from large predators. The question arises as to whether or not MDIFW understands this and is adapting their game management and predator control programs to meet the changes.

* - If MDIFW insists they will continue to attempt predator control by hiring trappers and hunters, these hunters and trappers must be permitted to go where the coyotes are. I’ve read, researched and followed nationwide programs designed for deer, elk and moose management and predator control, and any plan design to target specific areas only is not about predator control but about being politically correct and appeasing the environmentalists. One trapper reported to me that trappers involved in this program knowingly drive by areas loaded with coyotes, just to get to their designated “priority” sight. There appears to be some flexibility in this as one trapper did indicate the biologist he was working with agreed to let him expand his coverage area.

* - If MDIFW insists on hiring predator trappers, then let them keep the incidentals they trap.

* - The current program needs serious revamping. Start with allowing trapping by everyone, year round until predators are brought under control and the deer have responded. This trapping will be allowed in and during fawning season as well and along migration routes. Coyotes and bears target fawns. They know where the fawning areas are and go there for their easy meals.

* - Do away with the current hired trappers and hunters and open the opportunity up for all. As I said, just targeting special areas, while a part of the program, should not be the only part. The failure that exists for two years running is the ridiculous costs associated with killing a coyote. $25,000 took out 115 coyotes by paid trappers and hunters at over $200 an animal.

* - Implement an incentive program, perhaps similar to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, Canada. We learned that when the price of coyotes pelts went up, so did the kill numbers. Maine can create a flexible pelt incentive program designed to insure each trapper and hunter will receive a minimum amount for each coyote taken. As the price of pelts goes up or down, the incentive bonus goes up and down. I was told by one trapper that $40 per coyote would be about a break even proposition. Let’s pump that up a little and see the harvest go up while at the same time putting a little extra cash in these people’s pockets.

* - I am told that the Passamaquoddy Indians are seeing some good success with their predator control programs and the deer are responding. Have we gone and talked with them about the rest of the state’s problem? Again, how serious are we about this?

* - A mapping program was suggested. If mapping of large areas of land were conducted in order to pinpoint known deer wintering areas, drainage, forests, fields, fawning areas and deer migration routes, it would not only aid in how to approach predator control and deer management but working with land owners in such a fashion might go a long ways in cutting down on the deer habitat destruction everybody rants about. I realize there is a cost associated with this but there must be grant monies, etc. available. Get our U.S. Senators and Congressmen busy.

* - We must also, if serious about saving the deer, reduce the state’s bear population. New studies are suggesting that black bears contribute as much to deer mortality as coyotes. We might start by including a fee-free bear tag on a resident big game hunting license the way it used to be. In addition, it sounds as though MDIFW is in favor of a spring bear hunt, so why don’t we have one? If MIDFW opts not to implement a spring hunt, at least up the bag limit to 2 bears.

* - Increase number of moose permits. Maine’s moose population has now grown to an official estimate of 75,000 animals and some have estimated that number to be closer to 90,000. Moose compete with deer to some degree with food and habitat and it doesn’t require a degree in wildlife biology to understand that moose are plentiful in regions where deer are not. If only temporary, up the number of moose permits being issued in order to not hinder the deer herd regrowth. While not a huge determining factor, at this point any little bit might help.

These are mostly the ideas of trappers and hunters I have talked with, along with a few of my own. I tried to include mostly those that seemed in agreement with all that I communicated with. The current plan simply is not working and it’s time to rethink it. If Maine and the Governor are serious about the value in saving the deer herd, we can’t wait on the weather. Maine must act seriously and decisively. Hunters and trappers must figure out a way to make this work.

On a further note, none of this is about coyote or predator eradication. It’s about reasonable and responsible wildlife management. This nation has implemented the North American Wildlife Conservation Model for decades with overwhelming success; the envy of the free world. And now environmentalists are attempting to destroy that for their own mislead programs and agendas. Allowing predators to grow uncontrolled is irresponsible. Maine sportsmen will not tolerate thoughtless wildlife management.

Next Page »