June 7, 2020

Perpetuation of Myth of Climate Change Is Killing Moose in Droves

There is no end to the perpetuation of ignorance by those still claiming that climate change is responsible for what some believe to be an increase of incidence of winter ticks killing moose in Maine and other regions of New England and in Minnesota.

The Media Echo Chamber is undaunting when it comes to copy-and-paste fake journalism concerning Climate Change. Of course, this is fueled by fish and game departments nationwide eager to rattle the rafters with the battle cry of Climate Change. After all, it does give them the ultimate in excuses for doing a lousy job of wildlife management.

One can only hope that eventually (probably when it’s too late) biologists will figure out about winter ticks that are killing moose. However, the political agendas (this includes profits and people control) are so strong pertaining to Climate Change, there is little hope that much will change. As a result, a lot of suffering will occur.

In 2012, Maine biologists explained to the public, through their preferred echo chambers, what was causing winter ticks to flourish. One biologist reported, “Winter ticks are affected by what the previous winter was… If you have a lot of snow and a lot of cold, that’s not good for the ticks. If you have less snow and more warmth, it’s really good for the tick.”

This is but one example of countless reports from wildlife biologists regurgitating information of which they know little about. I will not clutter up this page with the hundreds, maybe thousands, of media reports that global warming is responsible for the growth of winter ticks.

The consensus takeaway from all these fake reports is the claim that cold winters and lots of snow will keep the winter tick in check and that because we are experiencing “climate change,” i.e. global warming, places like Maine are not having snowy years and cold temperatures. Thus, winter ticks are flourishing…according to them.

I have reported for several years that lots of snow and cold will have no real impact on the winter tick aside from abnormal events that might occur in late summer or early fall and in the spring.

I have also expressed my concerns that trying to artificially grow moose populations to please guides and wildlife- gawking businesses is what is really contributing to all the ticks.

Attempting to cause people to think for a change and ask simple questions gets tiring. For example, if “Climate Change” (no snow and warmer temperatures in winter) is causing tick growth (sea level rises and other predicted phenomenon that is impossible to measure – we must rely only on well-bribed climate scientists), then other events predicted or used as excuses should be manifesting themselves. The statement “deer are at their northern habitat fringe in Maine” is repeated relentlessly when management tactics by wildlife biologists fail. If we are experiencing enough global warming to cause ticks to grow out of control and seas to rise, then it only makes sense, according to their reasoning, that the “northern fringe” must be migrating north and the deer population growing due to less severe winters.

Another example involves the moose. As I have pointed out, if the increase in winter ticks is caused by a warming climate, then because moose are at their southern habitat range, moose populations in Maine would be decreasing because moose are migrating north.

Are any of these things happening? Would you know even if they were?

But let’s get back to that statement, “If you have a lot of snow and a lot of cold, that’s not good for the ticks. If you have less snow and more warmth, it’s really good for the tick.”

According to the brain trust that promotes global warming as the cause of everything, all that is needed to mitigate this winter tick problem is “a lot of snow and a lot of cold.” Without this condition (caused by Climate Change) ticks do happy dances.

Evidently, it’s more important to rinse and repeat the Media’s echo chambers mantra about the existence of global warming and the myriad theories of death and destruction from a “warming climate” than it is to bother reading what research has been conducted involving the winter tick.

(Note: I have done a lot of that work for you. All you have to do is read it…here.)

As I indicated earlier, perhaps there is some glimmer of hope that eventually some of these wildlife biologists will put their “eye pads” and cell phones away and read some real scientific journals to learn something. Today, I have read in the Bangor Daily News that researchers in Maine who are studying how weather and climate affect tick survival are indicating (and seemingly in agreement with previous tick studies I have referenced for years) that deep snow and cold temperatures may not have the effect on ticks once thought: “From what we’re finding, even with these persistent below-zero temperatures, it’s staying 25, 30, as high as 35 degrees down close to the ground,” said Griffin Dill, coordinator for the tick identification program at the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Pest Management Office. “It’s still relatively warm under there … If we have the ticks covered by leaves and covered by a foot or so of snow, chances are, even with these persistent cold temperatures, they’ll be relatively unharmed.”

To be forthcoming and honest, this phenomenon is beneficial to the growth of many other ticks and not so much for the winter tick. I don’t want to be misleading. However, the general consensus among Climate Change wildlife biologists is that if there is lots of snow and cold in the spring when engorged winter ticks drop from the moose, the snow and cold will kill them. Perhaps, but consider what this study reports the temperatures are at ground level. I doubt very seriously that engorged ticks are going to lay on top of the snow, break out their suntan lotion and crack a bottle of Corona. It is possible that conditions might exist to prevent some ticks from getting below the snow surface but according to existing data, it would take a minimum of six consecutive days where temperatures, day and night, would not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. When is the last time in March and April that weather phenomenon existed? I thought so. It should also be noted that persistent sub-zero temperatures will have no effect on ticks hitching a ride on a warm moose’s back for the winter.

In an attempt to understand the reasoning behind blaming global warming, the chore becomes a bit difficult. Winter ticks, we are told, are killing moose. Winter tick infestations at levels high enough to cause death and destruction of moose are caused by global warming. This is convenient. This excuse says it’s not my fault. It’s the fault of global warming, that there are no deer and moose are dying. There’s nothing I can do. Give me millions of dollars and I will conduct studies in an attempt to create more scientism to support my scientismic claims about global warming.

As the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz exclaimed, “If I only had a brain,” so too have our trained biologists readily and eagerly stated, “If we only had lots of snow and lots of cold.”

Well, as much as Maine’s fraternity of “scientists” want to claim that last winter in Maine was “mild,” while parts of Western Maine saw record snowfall, this winter has turned into “lots of snow and lots of cold.” But now, tick scientists are telling us this is good for the ticks.

So what’s it going to be?

That’s easy to predict. It will be what is convenient to fit that narrative, which in turn will ensure those retirement checks in the end.

Business as usual as our moose pile up dead in the woods and biologists attempt to take care of the guides and wildlife gawkers and hoping Climate Change will bail them out.

We should be reminded of what one Alaska State veterinary said about controlling winter 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.”

GASP!

 

Share

You Ain’t Nothin’ But a Hound Dog?

Share

Parasites “A Major Threat to Moose” But Leads “Occasionally to Death.” HUH?

Perhaps Cornell University is at it again. The last time I recall the antics of Cornell University, was when they, in their attempt to do something about the overrunning deer population on campus, decided to conduct some “tubal ligations” on some of the female population of deer.

When a university, or any other organization, is wallowing in liberal idiocy, stupid things happen to stupid people. What the brilliant wildlife department at the university failed to understand, in their blindness, was that tubal ligations on female deer only caused those female deer to go into estrus and remain in estrus until they had successfully mated. Now, without the ability to successfully mate…The result? Every buck within a hundred miles descended on Cornell looking for action.

And now, the $34,000.00 a year tuition at Cornell, has students who are conducting tests, and what they call research, to see what are killing the Adirondack moose. They say moose eating snails is how they contract “brain worm,” which ends up killing the moose. However, in one paragraph, the university writes: “…surveys in 2016 on 11 live moose and 22 necropsies and concluded parasites are a major threat to the moose population.” (Emboldening added by editor)

This if followed almost immediately by this: “Foraging moose then ingest infected snails, culminating in a diseased brain and spinal cord, and occasionally death.”(emboldening added by editor)

I may be wrong, but from my perspective, if I was going to state that parasites, from eating snails, are a major threat to the moose population, then it must be that death, and/or failure to reproduce, is at a level high enough the recruitment of new moose calves is lower than total mortality of the adult moose population.

If that is true, then how can the results of foraging moose, eating snails, lead to “occasional death?”

Maybe they should try some tubal ligations.

Understand that by reading Cornell’s own words, they are clueless as to whether moose are eating snails and if so, if it is killing the moose. “Our results show that moose foraging in areas with high soil moisture may likely encounter higher densities of gastropods – snails and slugs – which likely increases the risk of parasitic threats from deer brain worm if the snails are eaten.” (Emboldening added by editor)

I suppose it is just as LIKELY that moose MIGHT eat a truck full of cannabis a LIKELY die!

Here’s one more observation. The student researchers (give em a break, right? So they can graduate and fill our wildlife manager departments with more progressive, brainwashed, environmentalist, idiots.) said they are looking into wet and “water areas” where they think, perhaps they will find these parasitic-laden snails. One area of interest to them is described this way: “Since moose make use of water areas and eat in wet, dense pine forests, they’re susceptible to a large presence of gastropods …”

I grew up in Maine and lived the majority of my adult life here. Maine is the Pine Tree State. Pine forests are everywhere and for some strange reason, the people of Maine decided to call Maine the Pine Tree State. Maine also has moose…more than any other state in the lower contiguous states. I’m going to go out and search for moose eating in “wet, dense pine forests.” And all this time, I thought pine trees, like the hundreds of thousands I have on my small acreage, thrived in dry, sandy places.

I just can’t believe my own eyes!

Maybe I should try some tubal ligations.

Share

Ducks, Dodos* & Moose

By James Beers

*Dodos were flightless birds slightly larger than turkeys.  They were found only on the island of Mauritius, East of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean.  First recorded by Dutch sailors in 1598; by 1662 dodos were extinct due to hungry sailors stopping there for food and introduced species like Norway and Black rats that began preying upon their single egg nests and young.  It can honestly be observed that no one intentionally made dodos extinct.  Dodos became extinct due to human ignorance of and indifference to the dodos fate

Question: “What do ducks, dodos and moose have in common?”

Answer: “They have each been the victims of unregulated predation that reduces their numbers such that they either did or are steadily losing their many benefits to mankind.

The dodo no longer feeds island visitors or the residents of Mauritius thanks to Early European voyagers and the vermin they carried with them

The moose and particularly their calves and pregnant cows are very vulnerable to wolf predation as attested to by the suspension of moose hunting in Minnesota as wolves increased in numbers dramatically.  This phenomenon is repeated routinely in Alaska when wolf numbers are allowed to increase above minimal levels as well as in the Upper Rocky Mountain States as wolves have increased dramatically in recent years.

Ducks in North America, similarly, are preyed upon by duck hunters since the times of Asian immigration as glaciers receded to the advent of European arrivals and settlement.

What these three animals do not share is any human concern for their sustainable benefit to humans as their numbers dwindle and the effects of predation are ignored.

In the case of the dodo, ignorance and indifference are understandable, though regretted, as men were dramatically expanding their limited comprehension of the globe and the life forms it contained.

In the case of moose; Minnesota and the Upper Rocky Mtn. States are forced by federal fiat; from feckless politicians and self-serving bureaucrats in thrall to radical environmentalists, animal rights fanatics and a host of reactionaries from gun controllers and anti-hunters to communists; to host and protect wolf densities not seen for over a century.  Alaskan moose are also threatened by the same characters using expensive court maneuvers to prevent any and all wolf control to maintain moose availability as desired by Alaskans. Thus, you could say the dodo was made extinct by human indifference while the moose numbers and availability are being reduced in moose habitat in the US by a government bureaucracy using force to implement a broad range of hidden agendas.

But; what of ducks?

The same federal bureaucrats that are forcing uncontrolled wolves into the Lower 48 States’ settled landscapes have had complete management authority over ducks and duck hunters for a century.  Up until the early 1990’s, these bureaucrats (USFWS) gave high priority to waterfowl management and waterfowl hunting.  Waterfowl hunting financed federal land acquisition for Refuges, state wildlife programs and Billions of dollars in the economy from art and rural employment to businesses and manufactories for everything from guns and boats to waders, decoys and rural hunting leases.  Waterfowl were important and managed carefully for a long list of good reasons by knowledgeable federal managers and cooperating state bureaucrats.  But, “Why did I say; ‘Up until the early 1990’s’?”

In the early 1990’s, USFWS began a steady shift away from hiring anyone trained in, concerned about or likely to advocate for waterfowl and waterfowl hunting.  The “new” USFWS was to consist of anti-wildlife management and anti-hunting “protectionists” and animal “rights zealots.  Just as with wolves federal (and complicit state) bureaucrats began “cooking” census numbers and counts.  They shifted migratory bird money to “education” about “saving” every living thing from guns, chainsaws and cows.  They shifted migratory bird enforcement from waterfowl and preventing importation of Injurious Wildlife like snakeheads, constrictors, pythons and Asian carp to prosecuting anyone harming a wolf or grizzly bear and “assisting” the “new” natural resource enforcers shooting a protestor in the snow, shooting privately owned cows on grazing allotments and getting life terms for ranchers standing up for their rights.

I could go here, like telling you how the waterfowl NGO’s like Ducks Unlimited are no more than Charlie McCarthies on the federal ventriloquist’s knee.  Before I retired to Minnesota (once a famous duck hunting state but no more) I was critical of DU’s reticence in opposing the USFWS shift from pro-ducks to anti-ducks.  When I moved here I renewed my DU membership that I had let lapse, with the intention of going to a few DU Banquets (where they raise lots of their money) and meeting some duck hunters and maybe finding a good place or two to hunt.  In two years I was never once invited to or informed of ANY banquet.  HHMMM!

Two other quick incidents tell you all you need to know about ducks, USFWS and DU.  My first year in MN as I was leaving church one Sunday a fellow came up and said he heard I was a duck hunter.  When I said yes, he said good and that he and I should go sometime and he would get back to me.  He never did and I still see him most Sundays.  When I asked if anyone knew him, I was told not his name but he works for the MN DNR. That was 8 years ago.

Then there was the time I wrote a scathing article about waterfowl management in Minnesota and (among other local addressees) sent it to everyone I thought might be able to do something.  At 6 AM the next morning I got a very happy and enthusiastic call from a Minnesota duck organization president who talked to me for about 15 minutes and said he was going to speak with his board and get back to me.  That was 7 years ago and still… crickets.

Certain refuges no longer plant waterfowl food or manage for hunting (primary stated reasons for funding and authorization for purchase to Congress).  Nasty anti-hunting bureaucrats get nastier and nastier as they go about more egregious policies without any opposition from cowed hunters and NGO’s like DU that trade jobs and grants with USFWS employees and retirees routinely, again because of no enforcement or pushback.

All of the foregoing is a lead-up to the following note by a former USFWS employee and duck hunter like yours truly.  He is a native of the Lower Mississippi Flyway and I grew up and live in the Upper Mississippi Flyway.  He has been a reader and correspondent for years and he just shared the following message he sent to a colleague at Louisiana State University regarding the current state of the continental waterfowl population and duck hunting.

I agree with everything he says here and I ask you to remember as you read it that the same USFWS bureaucrats that are pushing wolves and grizzlies; turning state wildlife agencies into federal handmaidens; allowing all manner of deadly, destructive and dangerous wildlife into the USA despite the money, employees and laws they are given to prevent this – these same bureaucrats are purposely doing what he relates and unlike those European sailors, these wildlife-as-tools for rural destruction cannot plead ignorance or indifference.  They are doing this with full knowledge for their “foul” purposes.

Jim Beers

2 August 2017

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

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.

August 1, 2017

History of the Perfect Storm for the Demise of Ducks in North America

1-Agricultural practices have changed from spring plowing to fall plowing.  Fall plowing eliminates fall and spring duck foods

2- Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) stabilized regulations by flyway at very liberal harvest levels

3-High harvest levels appear to have dramatically decreased breeding populations in “Production” States, particularly within the Mississippi Flyway.

4-  Senator Trent Lott of MS forced the regulatory framework to be extended roughly 10 days longer into January, while all previous research had indicated that hunting seasons past January 15 broke waterfowl pair bonds, and led to poorer body condition in breeding hens the following spring. However, the northern states opposed this and requested that the frame work be extended on the front end by the same number of days. Instead of the FWS denying the southern states the ability to add days at the end of their season, they allowed northern states to open a week earlier.  This makes successful adult females and HY young ducks extremely vulnerable to hunting.  This has likely led to the disastrous declines in breeding populations in many “Production States”

5- Climate changes made this a monumental mistake for southern states because most northern states were usually frozen solid by Dec 1st. Therefore, in northern states ducks were only hunted for 2/3 of the season length no matter how long the season was.  So if the flyway was granted a 50 day season southern states hunted 50 days and northern states only hunted 30 because the last 20 days all the water was frozen!! Now most the States in the Miss. Flyway hunt nearly 60 days.

6 – Since 2005, 25 MILLION + acres of CRP and other grasslands (DUCK NESTING HABITAT ELIMINATED) have been converted to agriculture to provide corn for the government imposed ethanol mandates.  Somehow starting at the exact same time (2005) the May Survey began to increase, and by spring 2015, minus 25 million acres of CRP, and millions of acres of drained temporary and seasonal wetlands, duck populations – according to the May Survey- had grown to the point that they were higher than they had EVER been.

7- Although the May Survey indicated that there were more breeding ducks in spring of 2015, the waterfowl hunting season in 2015-2016 was one of the worst in several decades with more than a million fewer ducks killed in the Mississippi Flyway alone than in the previous year.

8- Further, although May survey numbers have grown exponentially since 2005, to numbers greater than have ever been counted, mid-winter surveys indicate half the number of mallards than in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

9- Water is now artificially maintained throughout the US and crops are “legally” left unharvested, and FLOODED, for the purpose of killing ducks.

10– The Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) Matrix was adopted to stabilize hunting regulations in the early 1990’s. The matrix is so biased to high harvest that the duck season in the Mississippi flyway has been 60 days and 6 ducks for over 20 years.

11- The AHM regulations are largely based on the May Breeding Population Estimates conducted by the US FWS, CWS and the States. These estimates were in 2016 –13.9 million breeding mallards. The harvest on mallards has been down 40% in the flyway!!! The Adult to immature ratio is very low. Given these data it appears that near record numbers of Mallards are not producing adequately to sustain the population, or, and this is quite likely given every other source of data concerning duck numbers, the May Survey numbers are not portraying waterfowl population trends in a reliable way.  It seems highly illogical that duck populations can continue to increase with the amount of habitat destruction that has gone on the past 10 years.  There are very few waterfowl hunters, observers, or biologists that would concede that there are more ducks today than there were in the 1950’s, 1960’s or 1970’s.  If that is the case, and the May survey has not changed protocols, then it is hard to believe any of the numbers coming from this survey.

12- The FWS conceded to allow special teal seasons in several “Production” states in the past 10 years.  The “production” states within the Mississippi Flyway that took these seasons have all seen dramatic declines in blue-winged teal numbers within their states over the past 30 years.  Why would the FWS allow these states, and more importantly, why would these states take a blue-winged teal season, thus adding harvest to their already decimated local blue-winged teal populations?

13- With the above points in mind, there is major concern by knowledgeable biologists and hunters that there are major flaws in the management of Duck populations in North America.

14 – One significant problem in this equation is that duck scientists that question the current system are typically shunned, ignored and not professionally considered.  The purpose of this document is not to condemn current management but to open the eyes of the people that actually manage waterfowl in North America.  It may not be too late to reverse this perfect storm, but something must be done soon if we are to stem the tide of declining waterfowl hunters, and maintain waterfowl hunting traditions for our children and grandchildren.

Paul Yakupzack
Wildlife Consulting
244 St. Paul Street
Houma, LA 70364

Share

Fewer Moose Permits Because Of Fewer Moose Collisions With Cars?

George Smith writes, “A Portland Press Herald news story by Deirdre Fleming recently reported that collisions with moose are down 55 percent in the last 10 years. And that led DIF&W this year to eliminate moose hunting permits in three coastal WMDs.” This information evidently comes from the Portland Press Herald. Certainly, neither Fleming, Smith or the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) mean, or are suggesting, that MDIFW is now basing their moose management decisions, along with the allotment of moose hunting permits, solely on how many cars collided with moose and how many people died in the process? Are they?

Smith also writes, “DIF&W’s outstanding moose biologist Lee Kantar still maintains that we’ve got between 60,000 and 70,000 moose, a drop from 76,000 in 2013. I am skeptical, given the significantly fewer moose I spot in my travels…” Here’s a thought. Suppose that MDIFW’s Kantar is correct, mostly, in maintaining his belief that Maine has between 60,000 and 70,000 moose. And let’s suppose that Smith is correct that he sees “significantly fewer moose” and that is the case statewide. They both could be correct you know.

The terribly incorrect information might just be that there was not 76,000 moose in Maine in 2013, but perhaps there were 90,000 or more moose in Maine before the ticks began wiping them all out. Someone from the MDIFW made the statement that there were at least 90,000 moose in Maine.

 

Share

Are Radio Tracking Collars Just a Waste of Money?

One might think so.

I was reading last night a story about what authorities in Minnesota are saying is killing their moose. According to this report, Minnesota once had 8,840 moose in 2006 and now there are only 3,710 “based on aerial surveys in January.”

What about those surveys?

We are told that that between 2013 and 2015, 173 moose were collared as part of a planned study to determine why the moose were dying. It has been reported that because of animal rights perverts’ complaints about the study (probably fearing the study might prove their ideology wrong), the governor stopped any further collaring of moose and essentially the study ended and one has to wonder whether much or any of the information they claim to publish is worth camel dung.

The report says, “Of 173 moose that were captured and fitted with GPS-transmitting collars from 2013 to 2015, here’s what happened to them:

* 28 moose are still alive with collars that are working.

* 53 are believed to be alive but their collars have stopped working.

* 23 are presumed to be still alive but their collars fell off and their status is unknown.
* 12 died immediately after being collared so were not part of the mortality study.
* 57 died with working collars and are the basis for the mortality study data — the moose where cause of death is known”
57 moose, out of 3,710 is the sample used in making their determinations as to what is killing Minnesota’s moose. I doubt that the pie chart they have provided is very accurate and can tell us only what perhaps killed those 57 moose.
But it gets worse. Minnesota officials tell us that collars are very problematic. “It’s frustrating. It’s disappointing. But it’s still a developing technology. Everyone who uses collars like this has issues. There’s a lot that can go wrong,”
The report also contains some other interesting bits of information. As an example, some have determined that the moose are “malnourished.” Undernourishment is being blamed on habitat and there are indications that the highest survival rates for moose are coming in areas that recently saw very large forest fires and the forests have begun to regenerate.
In addition, calf survival rates are running around 30% which, if accurate, tells us it is doubtful that there would be any growth in the moose herd contributed from newborn moose. And, those moose calves, according to Minnesota officials, are being killed mostly by wolves and bear.
Share

Confusing Moose Crash Information

Statistics Prove that Statistics Sometimes Don’t Prove Anything

Either Maine has more moose or fewer moose and more car crashes with moose or fewer crashes with moose. Or, maybe there’s both or all of the above all at once…or none of the above.

A recent article written for the Online version of the Portland Press Herald, in the title, states that the moose herd has declined and so have the number of vehicle collisions with moose. The article begins by stating that these collisions have dropped “in part because of efforts by state officials to alert drivers to the danger of the crashes.”

Then we are told that three Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) will not be allotted any Moose Permits this Saturday during the Lottery Drawing, “where a dramatic decrease in moose-vehicle collisions indicates a drop in the region’s moose herd.” Evidently the DOT doesn’t work to educate drivers in these WMDs about the dangers of colliding with a moose? And is the fish and wildlife department now using vehicle collisions to determine moose populations?

Maine’s moose expert, Lee Kantar, says in the early 2000s methods used to estimate moose populations weren’t as good as they are today. Because of the constant changes in methods of estimating, it’s impossible to make any honest comparisons as to increases or decreases in moose and vehicle collisions and the causes for reductions or increases. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. All we really know is the number of collisions. That’s easy data to collect.

What’s confusing is that this report says that the Maine moose population “is between 60,000 and 70,000, down from 76,000 in 2013.” I have serious doubts about these numbers. At one time, during debate about how to manage Maine’s moose, some members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) estimated Maine’s moose population to run around 90,000. About all that boots on the ground tells us is that moose numbers are way down – from how many is anyone’s guess.

But the information continues to be confusing. Kantar says there are “probably less moose” and then cites, “moose populations in midcoast and southern Maine are thin.” If we go by the numbers given, statewide there has been a reduction of 6,000 moose since 2013. How much of that reduction then comes from these three WMDs? Perhaps all of it as Kantar states, “the moose population appears to be thriving there [Aroostook County].” He says that the moose population in the northern counties has remained “stable.” Stable? I thought it was “thriving.” What’s also confusing is that he says moose in the southern part of the state are diminishing because of the winter tick problem. Huh? There are no winter ticks in the northern tier of the state? Or is it because MDIFW has data due to the ongoing moose study in the northern tier of the state while they continue to guess about what’s going on in the south?

Confusing!

So, let’s not take just Lee Kantar’s word for what’s going on. Ted Talbot, MDOT, says that, “despite installation of new forms of reflectors along Aroostook County’s main roads, crashes still occur frequently because there are more moose in the region.” Is the population “stable” or is it “thriving?”

This report states that according to Law Enforcement in Aroostook County, “there are still plenty of moose to avoid on the roads.”

Even though this report says that moose collisions in Aroostook County have “dropped to 129 last year, from 247 in 2007,” Madawaska Police say, “traffic accidents seem to be just as much a problem.” Are we to then assume that the efforts at warning drivers about moose is a waste of time and money?

So, what’s the point of all this? People should know by now that colliding your vehicle into a moose can be a very dangerous thing. If you live in Maine, you should always expect any animal is going to step into your path and you should be prepared. But, it’s bound to happen.

It appears as though the number of collisions with moose has decreased. That’s a good thing, unless moose numbers continue to decline to a point where there are no collisions and thus might tell us that the moose herd is in serious jeopardy. As far as what has caused the decline in moose collisions, this report isn’t really that much help and the information from MDIFW, DOT and law enforcement only confuses the issue.

All of this just makes me wonder a lot of things about media reliability and the accuracy of information being given by fish and wildlife, DOT and law enforcement. Maybe all their information is just too political and therefore makes no sense at all.

 

Share

There Is No Credibility When Talking Moose and Global Warming

It’s just a constant echo chamber! It never ends. Stupid begets stupid and the heritage of ignorance is perpetuated.

Moose in Northern New England are being killed by winter ticks…at least that is part of the reason. So long as fake scientists, along with the tools of the inept media echo chambers keep repeating utter nonsense, there is no hope.

In a recent diatribe from an environmental website, there is a relentless onslaught of how global warming and the existence of man is just screwing everything up. As an example of just plain stupidity, the author tells readers that what destroyed the moose in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont around the turn of the century was unregulated hunting and logging operations: “the moose—nearly disappeared from New England in the 19th century, a result of unregulated hunting and the clearing of forests.”

This statement is immediately followed by this one: “In recent decades, they found ideal habitat among the mechanized logging operations of Maine…. The timber industry provides a constant supply of new tree growth, the animal’s primary food.”

In another recent email I received, someone was quoted to say that warmer winters were a benefit to the deer population in Maine, followed by a statement saying, however, global warming was killing off all the deer in Maine.

There is no credibility. It matters not whether there is full, some or no truth in the points these people are trying to make. When you make such absurd statements that once a Second Grader could pick up on, one must find real difficulty in swallowing any of the rest of the regurgitated offal the media and fake scientists toss out at us.

The short of it all is this. Greed and the perverse worship of animals (worship of the creation over the Creator) demands that wild animals can be viewed regularly from the comfort of ones home or automobiles. An honest scientific application to achieve healthy wildlife populations has taken a back seat to social demands made by ignorant and greedy people unwilling to get outdoors and find the creatures where they are.

With this ingrained into our society, don’t ever expect that things will change…there will continue to be prevalent diseases.

My God! Didn’t we use to learn this stuff in like 3rd Grade?

Share

Moose Did Okay This Winter – Must Be The Global Warming

“Despite struggles in recent years, Maine’s state animal had a high survival rate over the winter. State moose biologist Lee Kantar says state data show about half of moose calves studied in western Maine have survived this year.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

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>>>

Share