April 30, 2017

Logging, intentional fires planned in Superior National Forest to improve moose habitat

*Editor’s Note* – Well, I’m confused but that probably doesn’t surprise many of you. Last time I checked Minnesota officials said there was little to be done about saving the state’s moose herd because “global warming” was causing everything imaginable that might work against the moose herd…including the defeat of Hillary Clinton last November.

Using the circular reasoning of unreasoned circular nonsensical clap-trap, isn’t cutting down forests contributing to global warming which in turn kills off the moose herd?

“Twenty years ago the Superior National Forest was criticized for allowing loggers to cut too many trees, especially too many large swaths of forest.

Environmental groups and others contended that so-called clear-cuts were more than just an aesthetic eyesore, but that they contributed to monocultures of small aspen trees and disrupted wildlife that depended on thick, mature forests of big, old trees.

The Forest Service responded by cutting back on cutting.

Flash-forward a couple decades, however, and plans to cut more and larger swaths of trees are getting high praise. Wildlife biologists and others say more logging and more fire are the only hope for Minnesota’s dwindling moose herd.”<<<Read More>>>

Isle Royale’s Reversal of Global Warming

If we listen to those who assume the high ground and are the only bearers of “Best Available Science” we are told that moose are struggling to survive in several places across the country and it’s all, directly or indirectly, being caused by global warming.

We learn that the wolf population on Isle Royale has, for all intent and purposes, killed itself off for various reasons. Because the wolves are gone, the moose population is “undergoing a population explosion.”

But don’t think for a moment it is exploding because there’s only two wolves left alive. No, no! It must be that somehow, the two remaining wolves have “magically,” as their magic has no bounds, reversed the effects of global warming and thus are growing more moose to kill and eat. According to the same “High-Grounders” because there are now more moose, the result of the wolves’ magic, more magic will take place in that wolves will rebound because there is more food. Seeing all those moose causes their reproductive organs to go bonkers. Let’s hope the wolves aren’t too busy moving rivers to save the birds. And even though disease and inbreeding killed the wolves, we know the moose have no diseases and there are no “weak and sickly” ones left because the moose magically took care of that.

Maybe it’s time that we look very closely at these magical moose such that Al Gore can spread them across the entire planet to spare us all from the devastation of global warming. Maybe they will even magically kill the sickly and weak among the people. Think of the money we could save.

Are They the King’s Moose Or Are We Now Subsidizing Maine’s Sporting Camps

According to George Smith, he reports, “DIF&W, as it has on almost all the bills this session, testified in opposition to the change.” 

The change in question here is in regards to another elitist, socialism-type, subsidized effort to give an even larger percentage of moose hunting permits to sporting camps struggling to make a go of things. If things don’t stop, all hunting permits will go to special interest groups and preferred, elitist organizations. This often means those who most are in need of meat for food, can’t afford to play or don’t stack up to some good-ole-boy’s idea of who can hunt and who can’t.

Since when is Maine now responsible for subsidizing sporting camp owners? Free Enterprise dictates that you either got a good product that is in demand or you don’t. Only socialistic/communistic societies bilk the general tax payer to subsidize a business so that government can benefit. In this case, it’s not just a subsidization, it’s a case of being able to afford the King’s ransom.

We further read, “…two national hunting trip brokers, Worldwide Trophy Adventures (A Cabela’s Partner) and Huntin’ Fool, direct clients to send a couple hundred thousand dollars to the Department, in part based on the odds of getting a tag in Maine…” And this somehow is justification for the proposed bill?

So, according to this article, the odds of winning a lottery permit to hunt a moose has dropped by 50%. Yes, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has seen fit, despite the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of moose suffering and dying each year due to winter ticks, to reduce the number of permits issued for hunting moose, evidently to perpetuate the winter tick problem. This reduction not only involves nonresident moose hunters. It has the same effect on Maine residents, and yet some in the legislature and those totalitarian/socialists think it’s equitable to subsidize the sporting camp owners and to hell with the rest of the hunting industry, as well as the many hundreds, or thousands, of Maine residents wishing for a chance to hunt a moose.

Maine Guides and Camp Owners already dictate to the MDIFW how to run game management and hunting seasons. Perhaps it’s time to end the good ole boy’s club of elitist participation and return to a science-based management plan and an even odds chance for every Maine hunter to obtain a permit to hunt.

Evidently, some are pushing to move hunting, and in particular moose hunting, into an elitist event of which only the wealthy can participate.

Thank you MDIFW for opposing such nonsense, and many of the other preferentially biased bill proposals aimed at benefiting special interest groups.

I have sympathy for people’s business’s that take a hit for any reason. That doesn’t make it right to force license holders and tax payers to foot the bill to keep them solvent. I doubt government would subsidize my business.

Don’t You Just Love Math?

It Happens Every Spring

Selfish Environmentalists Have a Strange Way of Thanking Hunters

A photographer in Maine loves to take pictures of moose. I assume for profit, although his letter to the editor doesn’t exactly admit that. And that’s okay too. He has that right to exploit wildlife for profit – within the laws of course just as the rest of us do. And, I’ve seen some of his photography and it’s quite good. He also has a strange way of thanking the real conservationists – hunters – for assisting in his enjoyment of seeing a moose in the wild, as he writes: “It is a thrill unmatched to see a mature bull moose, amidst the brilliant colors of autumn in New England, up close, living life, chasing cows, battling rivals and splashing across a beautiful mountain pond into the mystical Katahdin woods.” Who could argue with that?

The author suggests that hunting is limiting the chances for people to be able to see moose, as he describes above, and that hunting of moose should be stopped so that he can make even more money by exploiting the resource for selfish gain. Why is it that the Left seems bent on propping up their selfish desires at the expense of destroying it for others?

The author also suggests that Mother Nature would aptly provide him and anyone else with such desires to moose watch, more so than employment of the North American Model of Wildlife Management – a scientific approach to wildlife management that has proven itself to be the envy of the planet AND providing photographers and others the opportunity to glimpse all wildlife in a mostly natural setting. Of course due to the author’s ignorance of things, he fails to understand the concept nor see the realities, while thinking only of himself.

Maine is probably experiencing a sample of what a “natural balance of nature” might look like as we witness thousands of moose dying each year due to the winter tick, an infestation that I believe, and can be supported by science, is caused by Maine’s attempt at growing too many moose. Part of that attempt to grow too many moose can be attributed to people, just like the author of this opinion piece, who want to view moose and take pictures and pressure the government to fulfill their wants.

I doubt the author understands that what makes his expressed love of seeing a bull moose in front of a backdrop of Autumn colors, doing what moose do, of value, is that it is not something everyone can do anytime they have a whim. Doesn’t the real value come from the total experience which includes a certain degree of rarity in finding such a treasure? What becomes of this value when moose are ignored and to grow as nature decides, the result being needlessly dying animals from disease and parasites? A lack of knowledge causes the author to believe hunting, as part of a scientific approach to moose management, is limiting his opportunity to view and photograph moose, i.e. to obtain his own trophy. He fails to understand that Mother Nature doesn’t manage for his desires either but provides periods of ups and downs, disease and suffering. Surely man doesn’t want to see this. We have brains to use to figure it out. Why can’t we manage for ample for everyone and their wants and desires?

Yes, moose hunters enjoy hunting moose as much as someone might enjoy taking a picture. The value of the moose hunt is increased by a greater effort to find success in the same way a photographer has to work harder to get that trophy photograph. Perhaps the difference in the two comparisons is that the hunter, while they might be disappointed, would approve and understand if survival of the moose required a stop to hunting. Would the photographer have the same understanding if the state had to stop causing moose to suffer by artificially growing too many moose and bring the population down to healthy and yet sustainable numbers?

My suggestion to this photographer is the next time he sees a hunter, thank them for the hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars, they personally have spent, to ensure that he can still go to Baxter State Park in hopes of photographing a bull moose doing what bull moose do.

I wonder what the photographer has done to perpetuate the conservation of wildlife? Perhaps he could begin by first learning the truth of what the North American Model of Wildlife Management is all about.

Climate Change is Affecting Brain Cells of Reporters and Scientists

Hell, why not. I vowed I wasn’t going to waste my time further correcting and offering some honest appraisal of the way in which agenda-driven journalists and scientists use speculation and unproven statements of fact to sell copy and/or promote an agenda – one that most often in connected with money.

However…….

I was reading the other day an article published by Accuweather.com carrying with it the title, “Moose-Killing Ticks Thrive in Shorter Winters Due to Climate Change.” It is so filled with inaccuracies and outright fraud that I couldn’t let it fall by the wayside. More people need to call these frauds out and make them pay.

Let’s start at the beginning. I will post here a statement and then offer rebuttal.

“Moose calves across northern New England are dying at alarming rates, and scientists believe that deadly parasites benefiting from shorter winters are the primary culprits.” – Please understand simple English. Scientists “believe” does NOT verify any such fact. As a matter of fact, if you took the time to read every available “study” on this topic, nearly all of the information is copy and pasted from someone else and text is loaded with terms such as, “believe,” “suspect,” “might,” “assumed,” etc. I acknowledge that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are in the middle of moose studies, mostly to determine the causes of death. If they are able to do this, God only knows what useless drivel they will charge us with after the fact. Instead of reporting that “scientists believe,” perhaps a bit more honesty would be a better approach, i.e. “from information gathered to this point of the study, along with data and information provided from previous studies, winter ticks are found to be…….blah, blah, blah. But that doesn’t sell copies nor does it sway public opinion, leaving them with the unsubstantiated, hyperbolic, emotional, clap-trap claims that winter ticks, due, of course, to “Climate Change” are killing moose “at alarming rates.” And to further clarify, I might ask, is this “alarming” rate one of perspective from the author, the scientist, the next-door neighbor, the dog or the cat? How does this “alarming” rate compare to other years, perhaps dating back to the time of Noah? They won’t tell you because they don’t know.

“…killing about 70 percent of moose calves.” – Where does this information come from? (Boston Globe) It is important to know because I have spent enough hours, days, weeks, months and years studying this information to know that there exists a tiny number of actual studies of the winter tick or moose tick (Dermacentor albipictus) to know that even within the handful of studies, one study is used to support the other study…as studies go. Right or wrong, it matters not to a reporter interested in a story. Where did this statistic come from? It is important because for one, it renders much of the entire article without any credibility. But, again, that doesn’t stop the effort to sell copy.

““It’s just off the charts; this should not happen with such frequency,” said [the] chairman of the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). “This is about a calf carrying 75,000 ticks that are draining it of blood.”” – This is emotional clap-trap, which, of course, sells copies. I understand the use of an analogy to describe what this person perceives as a whole bunch of ticks that are found on moose. If you’ve seen a moose covered in winter ticks, it is quite astonishing. However, a scientist/professional should refrain from such emotional nonsense. “Off the charts.” What charts. Is this person saying that he has historic, scientific charts that show that 75,000 winter ticks on a moose is the highest it’s ever been? If so, produce them. If not, one has to wonder if there isn’t money to be made by influencing public opinion while playing on their emotions by describing the dire misery a poor and innocent moose calf might be experiencing.

This same person also states, “this should not happen with such frequency.” How does he know this? Once again I ask that he provide the historic, scientific documentation that shows ticks in numbers of 75,000 is higher than it’s ever been. Or is this about perpetuating an unproven theory about Climate Change and attaching it to a moose study that might be in need of more money?

“… at the center of a six-year study in which researchers in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are attaching tracking devices to moose as part of an effort to learn how ticks are affecting them.” – I have addressed this in the past. The claim by all three state’s studies is that they are trying to determine the mortality rates of moose and what forms of mortality are causing it. To claim that part of the study is to determine “how ticks are affecting” moose, cannot be done, other than to perhaps devise some percentage figure of how many moose deaths are caused by ticks. To learn how ticks affect moose, one must undertake a separate study of the tick, instead of simply relying on sketchy, echo-chamber studies that make claims that still remain unsubstantiated.

“In addition, unlike deer and other animals, moose appear to do a poorer job of removing ticks through grooming.” – This is an unscientific claim, for what purpose I’m not sure. “moose appear to do a poorer job.” I have to ask the question, appear to whom? Is it what the reporter perceives in his or her travels and research on moose, or is this just something he or she reads someplace else, repeating over and over again? I have read often in winter ticks studies that “it is thought to be” that moose aren’t as good at grooming as other wild ungulates, but I’ve never seen any scientific substantiation of that claim. Of course that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So, in short, we really don’t know if moose are poor groomers or whether the smell of their hair is a giant attractant, or some other such reason that might cause moose to attract winter ticks more than other ungulates. Why not? One guess is as good as another.

(Note: Readers should bear in mind that finding cures, answers and solutions to such scientific/biological “problems” dries up the money source. Finding solutions sends these scientists to the poor house.)

“Winter ticks may be thriving in part due to the New England ecosystem being disrupted by global climate change. According to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist …., the average winter temperature in Maine has climbed 4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1895 and 2015.

“This region of the country is one of the areas that’s warming the fastest in the lower 48 (U.S. states),”” – I emphasized “may be” again, because it is not a scientific term. How can you report on science by repeatedly using such wishy-washy terms? But here’s the real kicker – one that the worshipers of Climate Change refuse or are incapable of understanding.

According to what this reporter says, a meteorologist claims that between 1895 and 2015 Maine “average winter temperature” has increased 4 degrees F. It is completely dishonest for any meteorologist to make this claim unless they can provide proof of the following extremely important elements of scientific temperature research: 1. That since 1895 the science collecting agency – it must remain the same agency providing the same data – is using the exact same equipment in 2015 that it used in 1895, and, 2. That the locations of the collection sites have not changed both geographically and its immediate surroundings, and, 3. That the agency responsible for the collection and perpetration of temperature data hasn’t “fudged” the data to promote agendas – that is agendas that are sure to continue the flow of cash as well as perpetuation of political agendas.

Science 101 tells us that in making comparative judgements of possible changes in anything, all testing and equipment used, etc. must always remain constant. How else can you make an honest assessment?

It has been often repeated in news reports (and yes, you decide if any of the information in those reports is truthful or not) that the locations of where temperatures are taken, have moved all over the map, destroying that portion of consistency. We can only assume that the equipment has all changed. Do we trust those involved to have made honest adjustments and provided transparency to inquiring minds as to how changes to sample collecting may have been altered?

We know that there has been more than one occasion when those involved with Climate Change, have lied about information and have manipulated the data in order to support claims made or to continue the promotion of collecting research monies and political agendas. NOAA, it was recently discovered, deliberately changed its data to influence “charts” like the one provided by Accuweather in this article to promote Climate Change. This is a criminal act but ignored because people just want, so badly, to be True Believers.

“According to …, a staff entomologist for the National Pest Management Association (NPMA), the winter tick benefits from a warming climate.” – Unless this person has conducted studies on the winter tick to make such a determination, it would be my guess that he is simply supporting the Climate Change Echo-Chamber. There is little science done that would support this claim, and others. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

““In the past, snowfall and freezing temperatures in early/mid spring have curbed winter tick populations by killing a percentage of those ticks that dropped off their host,”” – This unproven clap-trap is repeated so often, even scientists think it’s a fact. All one must do is spend a little bit of time gleaning through the documentation that does exist and you can discover just how extremely viable the winter tick is. Once you’ve learned that, you’ll see how silly it is to make claims that a week of snow here and a bit colder there, will kill the ticks at whatever stage they are at.

“…steadily rising temperatures have caused the fall season in New England to be slightly longer, by about a week, while the winters have also been shortened. That extra week in which winter is delayed gives ticks an extended window to latch onto moose for the duration of the winter.” – Odd that I just heard this same claim being made by a Maine biologist also studying moose this winter – echo-chamber of propaganda. (Boston Globe) It would seem to make sense to the average Joe, especially a mentally deficient one who thinks Climate Change is real, that a longer, warmer Fall season would, naturally (wink-wink) increase tick production. But does it? The truth is, these guys don’t know. They are only repeating what they have been told and refusing to pay attention to information that might be contradictory to the religion of Climate Change.

In studies that exist, the number one deterrent to ticks getting onto moose in the late Summer and early Fall, is weather…specifically wind. As part of the winter tick’s life cycle, in late summer the animal begins it’s ascent of vegetation – sometimes as high as 15-20 feet. Some “believe” this action is triggered by the duration of light as it is shortening heading into Fall. If there are brisk winds during this process, it will often blow the tick off the vegetation and they must begin their ascent again. If the timing is such, and this dynamic of tick-up-vegetation and getting on a moose is a short one, the tick fails to hitch a ride on the moose or other host for the coming winter. This, of course, breaks the life cycle and those ticks die.

It happens to be coincidental, or perhaps it was God’s plan, that at the same time that the ticks are making their way up the vegetation, that moose are at their most active stage – i.e. the mating season. This event also is “believed” to be caused by the same decreasing of available light. One could conclude that a skewing of these two events, even in small quantities could upset the tick’s life cycle, but how much?

It is not incorrect to state that an extra week of plant climbing for the ticks in Fall might contribute to some increased activity, however, the extent to which that might apply would be heavily dependent upon timing of the mating season and weather conditions.

“He added that climate change has the greatest impact on insects like ticks rather than large mammals like moose….the tick infestations are driving the moose die-offs.” – We must see some scientific substantiation of such claims. To make such a claim about how Climate Change has a greater influence on ticks suggests that the tick, at all stages of its life cycle, is susceptible to weather/climate changes. I have not read any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than that the winter ticks is an extremely viable creature that has very little in the way of negative influences due to climate and weather.

“While winter ticks may benefit from shorter winters, they are not helped by drought conditions.” – Yes, and I have read this now from several separate echo-chambers. All it takes is one news report to publish that drought conditions limit tick production and the media runs with it. Tomorrow it will be something else.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I have already stated that wind is the single most determining factor to tick mortality during the vegetation-climbing stage. I have also stated that the tick is extremely viable in all temperatures and climate conditions, as can be attested in the varying climate worldwide where the tick survives quite well….thank you. These same studies, which seem to be of little interest to anyone else, also suggest two things: 1. Increased humidity can slow down tick activity, and 2. Cold and damp weather during the vegetation climbing phase and moose activity phase, MIGHT also slowdown tick activity. Contrary to reports that “old fashioned winters” KILL winter ticks, it appears to me that weather might only slow down their activity at differing times. It is for this and many other reasons that I am a firm believer that the reason the winter tick is being seen as a killer of moose is because wildlife managers have caved to the whims of society and have grown far too many moose. Perhaps time will give us that answer but I have serious doubts.

I have often told the story – and heck, why not one more time – of the man who went to his neighbor and asked to borrow his ax. The neighbor said, “No! It’s Tuesday.” Perplexed the man wanted to know what Tuesday had to do with borrowing his ax. The neighbor’s reply was, “Nothing! But if I don’t want you to borrow my ax, one excuse is as good as another.”

As long as the media and science cling criminally to a false theory of Climate Change (they don’t want to loan their ax), taxpayers can expect nothing to change (one excuse is as good as another). With this in mind, all studies, like the ones now underway with moose and moose mortality, will be a waste of time and money. The real scientific method is no longer in play. Neither is honest journalism. We live in a post-normal society where the most important things in life have been cast aside and replaced with immoral, dishonest and self-serving agendas, i.e. the means justify the end.

Journalism today is to employ a keyboard and then just copy and paste what the last guy wrote. It seems that “science” has picked up the torch and is doing the same thing. This post-normal science is perpetuated by Scientism – the religious worship of fake science to prop up personal idealism.

Each time I do one of these rebuttals I say I’ll never waste my time again. Nobody cares and nobody listens. They only hear what they want to hear and this infectious disease has so deeply taken root in our society that the same approach is taken for everything that we do.

I just wonder!

 

Kill Deer To Limit Lyme Disease – Moose Ticks? Global Warming

In this article I was reading, it amazes me that doctors, politicians and scientists will argue that if you want to limit the infestation of the ticks that carry Lyme disease, we need to kill or eradicate the landscape of deer.

And yet, moose are dying by the tractor trailer truck load and it is blamed on global warming.

Is any connection being blocked due to political agendas? Probably.

Biologists ask Alaska residents to count moose

In this article, there’s a lot of “mights,” “coulds,” “perhaps,” and “possiblys” to make one wonder if any of this is worth it or if they even know what they are doing. Anchorage, Alaska is noted for sharing space with moose, particularly in the winter but also during the calving season when moose escape the dangers of the four-footed predators to take their chances with the two-footed ones.

One statement in the article says that in an effort to “count” moose in Anchorage, they have asked the residents, to call, text, or email each time they saw a member of the four-legged species so that state biologists could get an official moose count.Official? I doubt it.

According to the article, 94% of Alaska residents “enjoyed watching moose.” Like most polls it appears this one might be a bit misleading, or used as such for this article. Was the poll inquiring whether they liked watching them in their Anchorage yards on a regular basis? Perhaps, but I don’t think so…at least not in the same numbers.

If officials are hoping to get an “official” count of moose in downtown Anchorage, then what? Are they trying to devise a way to mitigate the problem, or is this even viewed as a problem? I’ll leave it up to my readers to imagine the problems that can erupt if it becomes an encouragement to keep moose as a fixture in the downtown. Hmmm.

This Anchorage, Alaska moose spent many a day in this door yard. She loved to lay under the drier vent to catch the warmth.

 

Did Man Extirpate the Caribou from Maine?

I was reading Part II of V. Paul Reynolds’ report about “Wildlife Restoration Projects.” He wrote mostly about Maine’s two attempts to restore caribou to northern Maine and seemed to suggest that with years of gained knowledge, perhaps it was time to try again. I’m not so sure about that, but…..

I did want to add to something that he wrote about the extirpation of caribou in Maine when he wrote: “Historical documents indicate that Maine’s last remaining caribou were killed off by market hunters who sold them to big city restaurants.” I won’t deny that market hunters made serious dents in deer, moose and caribou herds in their day. However, there are other historical documents that equally indicate the vanishing act of caribou and wolves cannot all be blamed on unregulated hunting.

A few years ago I did an extensive research piece on wolves in Maine from the 1600s until the time they were essentially declared missing in action. Readers should understand that this work was nearly 100% taken from the book, “Early Maine Wildlife: Historical accounts of Canada Lynx, Moose, Mountain Lion, White-Tailed Deer, Wolverine, Wolves, and Woodland Caribou, 1603-1930 – by William B. Krohn and Christopher L. Hoving – The University of Maine Press, Orono, Maine 2010.

It seemed that around the mid-1800s there existed, even then, disagreements as to whether deer, moose and caribou “disappeared” due to wolves or hunters. One writer made the claim, “Curiously enough there are old settlers in Maine who retain the theory that wolves follow deer. They claim that there were no deer at the time of the wolves – ‘the wolves killed them all off’ – but that since the extermination of the wolves the deer have gone on increasing.”

A hunter and trapper, in the book described as experienced, claimed: “In 1853 wolves were very plenty, and for the next five years were not scarce, plenty could be found within sixteen miles of Bangor in 1857 and 1858. They seemed to leave quite suddenly, the last I know of positively being taken was killed by Frank Fairbanks in 1860 in Munsengun. I know the wolves were not exterminated, as from the time they were quite plenty till the time they disappeared, very few skins were brought in. They left of their own accord, just as the caribou left us.”

Those that have some knowledge of the habits and behavior of wolves, understand that many things influence their behavior. For example, at times wolves can eat up all their prey. If this happens, the wolf moves on and the possibility exists that if the prey doesn’t return, neither will the wolf. If there exists alternative prey, i.e. there is more than one prey species to feed wolves, the large predator canine may never leave an area. It would probably require quite a number of wolves in Maine to seriously reduce or extirpate moose, deer and caribou.

In the quote above, we read of the first indication that wolves were not “exterminated” and simply up and left “just as the caribou left us.” This should be important information to consider.

According to evidence found in the book of reference, wolves were mostly gone from the state by the mid-1800s. From around 1860 into the early 1900s, there were very few, to almost zero, recorded wolf kills – the last official wolf kill took place in Andover, Maine in 1920.

One account in the Maine Sportsman, in 1900, of the absence of wolves, claims that, “During the whole winter we saw no deer and but few moose, the entire absence of deer being due to the wolves with which the woods were overrun. Caribou we saw everywhere and I plainly remember that one day, coming out upon them trailing along in single file was a herd of 17 caribou.”

It would seem this would indicate that with reports of wolves being missing from Maine by the mid-1800s, that in 1900, some 40 or 50 years later, there were still quite a few caribou, or at least more of them seen than deer or moose. One must honestly consider that if caribou “recovered” after a presumed disappearance of wolves, in 40 or 50 years, wouldn’t the deer and moose have recovered? Because there are so many influencing factors in wildlife management, that question cannot be simply answered. Other accounts from this book also indicate that after what appeared to be the absence of wolves, deer, moose and caribou made recoveries.

We also know that in the late 1800s Maine began it’s work to regulate the hunting and fishing activities throughout the state, with regulations well in force by the early 1900s.

Examination of the information provided in this book help to support the historic behavior of wolves, i.e. that once they had reduced the numbers of the prey to a certain level, the wolves took off for better hunting grounds. However, this event appears to have occurred nearly 50 years before the caribou disappeared.

It cannot be argued that many factors contributed to the disappearance of the caribou in Maine. That disappearance cannot and should not be completely attributed to hunting. We know that after the wolves mostly disappeared from Maine, the deer, moose and caribou recovered. If in 1900 loggers were reporting seeing “herds of 17 caribou” it was not market hunters and uncontrolled hunting that killed them after that.

If Maine was ever going to seriously consider a third try at caribou restoration, many, many factors must be considered other than introducing more of them this time. Perhaps the habitat of northern Maine simply cannot support caribou any longer. If caribou, in the very early 1900s, one day just walked out of the state – some believe they moved into New Brunswick and never returned – there had to be reasons. Do we know what those reasons were? Are we interested in finding out? Perhaps knowing what took place in the early 1900s would answer a lot of questions as to whether another attempt at caribou restoration would work.

Some things to consider: