January 16, 2018

Mixed Messages About Bears and Nuisance Wildlife And the Words of a Totalitarian

Not that most people actually care or are even positioned in any way to think for themselves anymore, but how can you expect people to “learn to live with wild animals” and other such nonsense when the messages being delivered by the indoctrinated authorities is all over the board?

Let’s look at some of the messages being delivered to the public by the Press from members of the so-called expert and authoritarian crowd, including government agencies.

In an article by an “expert” on bears, the expert addresses the fact that recently a professional runner (whatever that is) in Maine was attacked and chased by two bears. He wields the theory that the reason the bear chased the runner was for the same reason a dog chases a car…unknown. The runner decided, because he was a runner, I suppose, to attempt to outrun the bear. He did and ran into a building and hid behind a screen door. The expert says of this event: “Clearly if the bears wanted to get to him and all they had to do was lean into this flimsy screen door,” he says. “At that point the separation of this screen door was enough to say ‘the chase is over.’ Whatever signaled the chase to shutoff at that point indicating that this wasn’t a predatory attack. The initial event was over when there was a structure involved.”

The expert assumes, in his theory, that the bear is only motivated by the urge to chase something that is moving, a la the dog chasing a car theory. One thing wrong with this theory is that, according to the article, when the runner first encountered the bears, “…he encountered two charging black bears.” The two bears were charging not chasing.

What if the bears were actually looking for a meal? If I were to attempt to rationalized a bear’s behavior, as most people do, failing to accept the fact that an animal is an animal and a man is a man, I could say that the bears decided they weren’t that hungry and less effort would be expended by visiting a nearby garbage can or two. Animal behavior is unpredictable….period!

In this incident the authorities give the following advice: “Wardens advise people who encounter black bears to make themselves appear big, make noise and back away slowly. But they recommend people stand their ground if a black bear charges and say if the bear attacks, then fight back.”

A Maine wildlife biologist, whose job is to deal with encounters and interactions between people and wild animals says that he thinks the best thing to do is to find ways in which people can….wait for it…..here it comes….”learn to live with the bear…” or any other animal that is creating a problem.

I wrote recently about my thoughts on anyone trying to tell me to learn to live with wild animals.

Maine’s wildlife biologist suggests, instead of killing the nuisance animal: “would rather move the bear to somewhere else in the neighborhood and then “haze” it a bit, with noise, hit it with some rubber bullets, fire off some pyrotechnics and maybe even “some hound dogs barking nearby.” (Note: Authorities can legally harass and deliberately abuse a wild animal, hoping it teaches them to fear people. It is against the law for you and I to harass wildlife in this manner.)

According to the expert, relocating a wild animal, “About 50 to even 75 percent of them might die” anyways.

In Maine Government News we get a different story. Here we learn that the State of Maine has brought in the Federal Government agency APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) who will distribute rabies bait vaccines in efforts to counter the prevalence of rabies in the Pine Tree State.

In the Release an attempt is being made to educate the public about how to deal with wildlife and especially wildlife that may be infected with rabies. The Government advises against relocating animals, even though they tell us in other media outlets that they prefer moving problem animals to other locations.

“Do not relocate wildlife because this can spread rabies into new areas.”

The last thing I need is some heavily indoctrinated totalitarian animal lover telling me to learn to live with predators and nuisance animals. If I, my family, or my property is being damaged or is in danger of harm or damage, killing the problem animal is about the only sensible solution to the problem. More than likely the reason any animal is intruding on you or your property is because there are too many of them.

Time to do a little house cleaning.

You do what you want to do to deal with such animal issues but don’t tell me I have to learn to live with it when I don’t.

Share

It Seems the Brainwashed-Solution to any Problem is More Government

I was reading George Smith’s article about nuisance wildlife and in particular paid attention to the part asking who should fund dealing with “nuisance” wildlife. According to Smith, it costs $880 million dollars a year to deal with “nuisance” wildlife.

Nuisance wildlife are costing us a staggering amount of money: $880 million/year in the northeast. Car/critter collisions are the most expensive problems, averaging $1,412 in Maine.

There seems to be somewhat of a debate as to who should be responsible for dealing with “nuisance” wildlife and above all, who should pay for it.

Here’s a solution, the bulk of which will fall on deaf ears and be disregarded because we are so much programmed to be irresponsible, fellow human hating robots that the ONLY solution that can be envisioned is more of the same thing, i.e. more government. Why do we persist in calling on government, experiencing, always, failure, and yet, turn right around and ask for more?

The first thing that should be done is to work out a definition of “nuisance.” Without such, all is pointless. A property owner should be responsible for whatever happens on their property, including dealing with “nuisance” (well-defined) wildlife. But they are not allowed to.

Government interferes. Government makes regulations. Government caves in to animal rights groups and other perverted, totalitarian, useless eater leftists and, like everything else in our lives these days, must have our rear ends wiped clean by more and bigger government.

When government mandates all actions, then government should pay. When government tells you you need a permit, or you need first to call law enforcement (including code enforcement officials) before you can act to protect yourself and your private property, then government should pay the bills resulting from the consequences of government bureaucracy.

A great chunk of the $880 million dollars spent on dealing with nuisance wildlife could be saved and/or spent on better programs…or by just saving the taxpayers a few bucks. Why should I have to pay for a stinking skunk, living under your porch, to be removed? If I have one, I’ll deal with it my way. I once had rights. A damned skunk has them now.

If you or government wants property owners to cough up the expense of dealing with nuisance wildlife, then let the property owner do and pay for it and government butt out.

But this is pipe-dreaming. It will never happen because the only remedy anybody knows of these days is, “Where’s my Government?” I’m the radical because I think the correct way. Go figure.

ObamaSkunkObamaMouse

Share

Deer Pests? Time Marches On

Follow this link to an article to read at Field and Stream about how Time Magazine(behind pay wall) published an article about the overgrown populations of deer.

There are some locations around the country where deer are a “pest” and for various reasons. Some people don’t like running into them with their automobiles, while others get angry over deer eating their expensive shrubbery around their houses. In addition, too many deer often spells trouble with diseases like Lyme disease.

I’m not really opposed to any of the author’s suggestions as to what hunters could do to alleviate this “pest problem,” but I would like to comment on a couple of issues that I’m not quite so excited about and would like to offer a bit of a reality check.

First the author seems agog over the fact that Time Magazine actually published an article on deer and did it, “Fairly and thoroughly reported,” and that, “hunting is indeed the most effective, cheap, and humane method for dealing with critters when they become pests.”

I wouldn’t be so quick as to give Time Magazine (a creation of Henry R. Luce) accolades for anything that might appear to be in support of hunting, i.e. American heritage, freedoms, or North American Model for Wildlife Management. It’s just not in their blood (literally). The author seems convinced that, at least in this one article, Time is patting hunters on the back for the work that is done in the management of wild game. While it may be true that Time appears to be patting us on the back with one hand, it’s what they are doing with the other hand that is of the utmost concern. My recommendation is to take the article for what it’s worth and do not believe Time is on our side, ever.

In addition, if Time is now sending out kudos to the hunting community for a job well done, then why would the author exclaim that hunting is the preferred method of wildlife population control “when they become pests?” The historic reputation of the North American Model is that ongoing management, including the harvesting of game, prevents animals like deer from becoming pests. Ignorant environmentalists, spoon fed from birth about balance of nature, believe if man left these creatures alone they would create their own population controls and balancing. So, how is that working out? The question then must become why are all these places now faced with what to do about nuisance wildlife that wouldn’t have been a nuisance had the people and local governments allowed and provided for the proper management of these wild animals?

Sorry, I don’t buy a hunting license in order to become a pest control man.

A second issue talked about in this article is about the author challenging the hunters to do their part and step up to the plate to do something about too many deer, as if too many deer where the responsibility, or the lack thereof, of hunters. In my years of writing about these problems, where town after town struggles to find ways of dealing with “pest” deer, it is my impression that hunters would be more than eager to step up to the plate and do the right thing (chuckling here a bit) and kill deer. But the hunter is not allowed to. That’s the reason the deer are a pest now. How difficult is that to grasp hold of?

I’ll not debate all the reasons why the hunter has been banned from “doing the right thing”, but to think that the solution is as easy as getting enough hunters to kill a bunch of pests, is a bit naive and reflects lack of education as to the facts and history of dealing with overgrown populations of game species.

In the vast majority of those towns that decide deer need to be killed, they hire “sharpshooters”, not necessarily hunters because don’t you see, those who are at most at fault for allowing deer to become pests, hate the hunter, much because they are an icon of American Heritage; something that once made America great. Whether they like the “sharpshooter” is irrelevant because the anti humans who hate the hunters will do anything except employ the talents and experience of hunters to do the job, probably at no charge, other than being allowed to take home a deer or two. This is spiteful hatred on their part.

Get rid of the ridiculous bans on hunting in many of these areas, and tell the landowners who bar hunters from accessing their lands to shut up and stop complaining about too many deer, disease and auto collisions. If they want the problem solved, let the hunters come on their land and do it. As a landowner you can pick and choose who you will and will not allow to hunt your land.

But not to get away from the topic at hand, hunters didn’t create this pest problem, but if regulations and anti hunting/environmentalists would cease with their hatred of proven and humane wildlife management, many of these problems would go away or better yet, would never have occurred……and with little cost.

It isn’t just a matter of whether the hunters will take responsibility. It’s whether government, dictated to by environmentalists, will allow hunters to take responsibility. Why not ask those responsible for the problem what they are going to do about it?

Share

77% Support Legal Hunting as Means to Control Wildlife Populations

In a recent Responsive Management Report newsletter, among an array of attitudes and people’s perspectives on dealing with nuisance wildlife, is a statistic showing that 77% of the 3,962 survey respondents in 13 northeast states, support legal and regulated hunting as a viable means of controlling wildlife populations.

Nuisance Newsletter

The 13 states include: Connecticut (307), Delaware (302), Maine (300), Maryland (300), Massachusetts (303), New Hampshire (308), New Jersey (302), New York (311), Pennsylvania (302), Rhode Island (305), Vermont (320), Virginia (301), and West Virginia (301). The number in parentheses are the number of participants of the survey in that state.

The survey includes attitudes of people about nuisance wildlife, species involved, what the nuisance was, who should deal with these nuisance issues, including how this should be funded.

A full report can be found here.

Share