September 19, 2018

Predator Control

Share

Campers, hikers warned to keep food safe from bears

After a wild encounter at a New Hampshire campsite, state officials are warning resident and tourists about bear activity.

Signs have been placed at the Lincoln Woods trailhead warning hikers and campers to keep an extra eye out after a bear came a little too close for comfort.

White Mountain National Forest officials said they believe the black bear has been making its way into the Franconia Brook campsite, as well as Black Pond and other areas along the east branch of the Pemigewasset River.

“We’ve heard there’s been a couple of incidents where people set their pack down to go to look at something, and they come back and the bag’s gone,” said Evan Burks of the White Mountain National Forest.<<<Read More>>>

Share

What We Don’t Learn From The Natural World Around Us

Two appropriate quotes attributed to Mark Twain that might stay in context with the following information are:

“I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the “lower animals” (so-called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the results humiliating to me.”

“Each race determines for itself what indecencies are. Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.”

At my summer camp in Maine, I have a fair amount of wildlife that comes and goes and a lot that comes and doesn’t leave. Some of those that don’t leave present a bit of a problem.

I put out a couple of bird feeders because my wife and I enjoy seeing a variety of birds, some regular visitors and others very occasional. I also understand that this contributes to some of that wildlife that seems to much emulate the welfare recipient that would prefer to get free food than work for their own.

Putting out bird feeders in Maine can also attract really unwanted visitors from the forest. Black bears being one of them. I’ve not had black bears messing with my feeders but I’ve found a few droppings of scat within just a few feet of camp. I bring my feeders in at night.

The animals that present the biggest potential of nuisance are the squirrels. Gray squirrels and red squirrels come and go depending on the level of hunger and bravery. Some have figured out I will chase them off, and others don’t much care what I do. They will be back when they are ready.

It’s the chipmunks and ground squirrels that seem to be taking over. Seemingly they are quite unafraid of people. They are constantly cleaning up under the bird feeders, which I guess could be a good thing, but even as “cute” as some may think these creatures to be, they are a rodent and when winter time comes I don’t want them getting so comfortable they decide to winter in my camp or associated outbuildings.

As minor as that might seem to some, I value my property and if you’ve never had the pleasure of experiencing the damage and destruction squirrels and chipmunks can do to your house, it may not be all that minor.

There are “created indecencies” that present more of a problem than there should be. To many, they would tell me to take down my bird feeders. I know that but it will not cure completely the problem. Others might offer that I move out of the forest where my camp is and let the animals be. The lame adage being, “They were here first and I’m encroaching on them.”

Hogwash! What sat on the land New York City sits on before it became a concrete jungle? Give it rest already.

Going along with those “created indecencies,” even if I suggest “getting rid of” the chipmunks, ground, red, and gray squirrels, I would probably be threatened with my life and warned of jail sentences.

So, I try to find some sort of mediocre sharing of time and space and hope for the best when it comes to sharing my quarters with them. But there are limits to what I will put up with.

But there is a lesson to be learned here if only people would pay attention. But they don’t. Yes, there is much disappointment when comparing the “traits and dispositions” of the rodents around my camp with the animals that walk on two legs and are supposed to have the larger brains and intellect to rightfully put into place the pecking order from the man on down.

Unfortunately, this present coagulation of mislead members of society, have created their own ideas of what constitutes and indecency. Therefore, they demand that I must acquiesce to animals because they are of equal or greater importance in their existence and to hell with my property and/or my health.

Whether the human race ever fully understood the concept of the role of the man and the role of the animals, is debatable. For certain they have failed at this present time. But nature has it figured out.

While debating what I should do about the overabundance of rodents taking over my property, mostly out of fear of retribution from the animal lovers (of which they are more overabundant than the squirrels) a very natural thing happened.

I noticed one day that the chipmunks and squirrels were essentially gone – a least from immediately around my camp and buildings. What happened to them I did not know. Until…

A few days later as I came around the corner of my pump house, sunning himself in the corner of the building and the deck was a big ole garter snake looking quite fat and happy.

He jumped me at first, as you might imagine, but then I approached the snake a bit closer and began to make a pact with him. I said, “I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t bother you from being around my camp so long as you keep up the good work and keep those rodents out of here.”

The snake hung around for most the rest of the summer and then disappeared, probably eating himself out of house and home.

I have an open invitation I’ve extended to the snake as I am in need of him again.

This is all very simple.

Share

One Man Killed One Injured In Mountain Lion Attack – He Failed to “Look Big”

The insanity is fully entrenched. We’ve been convinced that we MUST coexist with such man-eating predators like mountain lions, grizzly bears, wolves, etc. and that these animals rarely bother anybody.

In this report of a man, out mountain biking in Washington State when attacked and killed by the lion, it is stated that: “People who encounter a mountain lion should not run from it, Mountain Lion Foundation officials said. Instead maintain eye contact, stand tall, look bigger by raising your arms or opening your coat, wave your arms slowly, speak firmly and throw items at the animal if necessary.

“Most cougars will move on if given the room and opportunity, according to the foundation. A person who is attacked should fight back; most people succeed in driving the big cat away.”

Who are they trying to kid anyway? “Most cougars” will move on? Right! That’s because the cat is offended by the smell of human waste as the person, who has been instructed on how to fight a cougar, just shit himself and the cat doesn’t care much for the taste of the excrement.

It is rare that a person being attacked by a mountain lion, grizzly, or wolf has the collective wherewithal to follow the instructions of looking the cat in the eye, looking big, waving your arms – slowly of course – speaking firmly, and throwing things.

And all of this for what reason? To protect the damned cat? Why? That cat is in direct conflict with the existence of these two men who got attacked and one died. Don’t you get it? You’d rather DIE, mauled to death by a vicious predator, in order to protect it? Something wrong with your head if that’s what you think.

The advice suggests to “throw items at the animal if necessary.” What? Is that like an absolute last thing? God forbid somebody throws an “item” that injures the poor cat?

Sane people, choosing to go into the woods to recreate where there are large predators, historically known to attack and kill people, regardless of what the perverted animal rights people and environMENTALists say, should go prepared to “throw items if necessary” like 240-grains of lead out the muzzle of a .44 magnum pistol.

I like living. I’ll be damned if I’ll give up that life just to protect an animal.

Share

Intensive Management in Alaska

From the Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

Harvesting wild game is extremely important to many Alaskan families. Participating in the hunt and sharing the bounty of economical, wild-grown meat are long-standing traditions.

The Alaska Legislature recognized the importance of wild game meat to Alaskans when it passed the Intensive Management Law in 1994. This law requires the Alaska Board of Game to identify moose, caribou, and deer populations that are especially important food sources for Alaskans and to insure that these populations remain large enough to allow for adequate and sustained harvest.

If the selected moose, caribou, or deer populations drop below what the Board of Game (Board) determines is needed to meet people’s needs, the Board directs the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) to undertake intensive management of that population. Intensive management is a process that starts with investigating the causes of low moose, caribou, or deer numbers, and then involves steps to increase their numbers. This can include restricting hunting seasons and bag limits, improving habitat, and predation control.

ADF&G is committed to maintaining healthy populations of all our resources, including moose, caribou, deer, wolves, and bears. The department will continue to manage Alaska’s wildlife populations with the health of all wildlife, sustainable harvests, and conservation as our guiding principles.

Understanding Predator Management

Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer, and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. Predators often kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans take less than 10 percent. In much of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain predator populations in the future.

General Information

Press Releases

Share

A Call for a Possible Bounty on Coyotes Because of Disease Spread

Jon Lund is the owner and publisher of the Maine Sportsman magazine. In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.

Maine got along just fine before the coyote took over the countryside and contrary to the many statements made otherwise, we don’t need them.

However, there is something else I’d like to touch base with readers about that Mr. Lund brings up in his article. This has to do with the use of chemicals and/or “natural” elements to ward off ticks and insect bites.

I’m sure that the pharmaceutical industry, and anyone else who stands to make a profit from their drugs to treat Lyme and other diseases, has thoroughly hyped the presence of ticks and instilled ample fear into the masses. After all, when the people live in fear they will do most anything.

Lund speaks specifically about permethrin. Permethrin is a common ingredient found in compounds marketed as insect repellents or killers. Basically, it attacks the central nervous system of insects.

Permethrin is a synthetic, or man-made, product derived from pyrethrin.

Most fact sheets available to the consumer paint the picture of permethrin/pyrethrin as mostly harmless even though long-term effects have not been studied. Some believe that using products that contain permethrin presents a higher risk of health issues than the odds of getting bit by a tick that will infect you with Lyme or other diseases. This is something you will have to decide for yourself. But to make that decision honestly, you should make the effort to understand the presented “remedies” and “threats.” It’s your health. Know what you are doing.

Lund takes the time to explain how ticks are spread around (I don’t find any factual claims that global warming is the culprit) and refers to a study where “…a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks.”

The same study tells us that the incidence and presence of Lyme disease are not related to the abundance of deer but to the absence of key small predators. “We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.”

This claim is in direct contradiction to the theory that predators kill only the sick of the prey species and justifies the “need” for predators to keep our ecosystems healthy. Not only is there no evidence that the presence of large predators reduces the presence of disease in ecosystems, this study seems to prove the exact opposite.

We forget or never learned history. Large predators like wolves and coyotes were not tolerated on the landscape by early settlers. And there were reasons for that, some of which include not only the destruction of property caused by these critters but it was known that they carried and spread diseases, many of which are harmful and even deadly to humans.

And yet, today, there is an all-out effort to protect these same predators. It appears that for some anyway, the demand for an abundance of coyotes at the expense of public health is just fine and dandy. I don’t see it that way at all and I’m not alone.

As the trend continues in the direction that it is headed, it should be fairly easy to predict there will be increased fall-out about protecting any animal that spreads dangerous diseases among the people. Few tolerate the presence of rats knowing and remembering the unbelievable death and destruction caused by the bubonic plague. Is there a difference in protecting the health and safety of the public because one culprit is a nasty rat and the other is a nasty wild dog?

Mr. Lund is correct in asking the question about the role of coyotes in Maine, or anywhere else, where, according to provided data, the coyote is directly affecting the growth, perpetuation and spread of Lyme disease.

If Maine cannot effectively control the population of coyotes for public health and safety with the current management strategies, then it may be time to look at something more effective.

It is dishonest by the many who blame hunting and trapping for the decimation and/or extirpation of wolves and coyotes but go out of their way to deny that hunting and trapping of the same animals today have any effect on reducing their population numbers.

Many decades ago when it was decided by governments that wolves and coyotes were destroying property and spreading diseases, one of the elements employed to rid the landscape of the nasty canines and the diseases they spread was a bounty system. Any bounty must be attractive enough to draw enough to the plan. What is the limit in the cost of healthcare?

Such a suggestion will be vehemently opposed by many, especially those who hate hunting and trapping. They are wrong that think people like Jon Lund and myself might promote a bounty system for coyotes only for improving deer hunting. Little do these people know and understand the real conservation of wildlife.

In the normal world which is being left in the dust, there would be no question as to what is the right thing to do. Normalcy tells us public health and safety take precedence over animals and the spread of disease. One has to wonder what the extent of the bubonic plague would have been like if people had known and took real action to get rid of the rats that spread the disease.

But, we live in a Post-Normal world now where many things are upside-down. Are we to wait until more and more people get sick and die before we begin to act? Are we serious about finding a cure to a problem or is there just too much money to be made along with the genocide many promote?

It appears so.

Share

Maine Bobcat: The Only Wild Predator in the East That “Regularly” Kills Deer?

I was reading an article this morning from Mount Desert Island, Maine about how the presence of bobcats helps to control the deer population on the island. Puzzling was this comment: “This interesting member of the cat family is our only wild predator in the east that regularly kills deer.” 

Like with any words in a written document and no author to explain, we are often left with guessing what certain words were intended to mean. Such is the case here.

First, is the author intending to refer to “our only” as meaning the bobcat is Mount Desert Island’s only large wild predator? Second, we are uncertain whether the author’s reference to “in the east” means in eastern Mount Desert Island, eastern Maine or the eastern United States. Third, what is meant when the author says “regularly kills deer?”

Guessing the precise definition really doesn’t matter in the accuracy of the claim. Either way you look at this, the statement is incomplete, at best, and also misleading, whether intended to be that way or not.

I would have serious doubts that Mount Desert Island has only bobcats as a large predator. As common as coyotes are in Maine now, it is almost certain they can be found there.

There are several “wild predators” in the east of Maine or in the east, that regularly (that’s a value-weighted perspective so this is my perspective) kills deer, although many refuse to acknowledge and understand the fact.

Excluding man, black bears, coyotes/coyote-wolf hybrids, bobcats, and Canada lynx regularly kill deer in Maine. Black bears regularly kill deer in Maine. This happens most often during the springtime when doe deer are fawning. Bears learn where deer go to fawn, as do all other predators. However, we must also remember that when any predator gets hungry enough they will take up doing things they might not normally do when food is plentiful. Black bears, under the right conditions, have been known to “ambush” a deer, sometimes taking one deer out of a traveling family of deer.

Maine’s coyotes, which we now have learned are actually a cross-breed mix of assorted coyotes, wolves, and domestic dogs, kill deer sometimes at rates that leave us astonished. For ease of writing, I’ll just call them coyotes.

Coyotes and bears both can smell a fawn soon after it has been born. They often move in and take the fawn while it is basically helpless. In winter, coyotes regularly visit winter deer yards. When conditions are right, a winter deer yard can take on the appearance of a bloody battlefield.

I once spoke with a Maine Warden who told me that one particularly “harsh” winter, while conducting aerial fly-overs, several areas were shockingly awash in blood on the white snows. His comment was he had never seen anything like it before.

When coyotes move into deer wintering areas, often they hamstring the pregnant does and, while still alive, eat through the vaginal canal of the deer and extract the unborn fetus. Evidently, this is a bit of a delicacy for the wild dogs.

Video exists of coyotes taking down adult, healthy deer. Partly because of genetic exchanges, these coyotes have learned to hunt in packs and, while perhaps not the method of choice, have proven they can take down a fully grown male deer.

The same is true for bobcats. The bobcat has a different method of killing a deer, but lethal nonetheless. Once again, photos and video readily show a bobcat latching onto an adult deer and persisting until the prey is killed.

The Canada lynx has been known to kill deer as well and shouldn’t be discounted as a threat at certain times to the deer.

Maine has several large predators and those predators will kill deer…regularly. Depending upon the conditions, a large predator may or may not kill deer. Depending on the conditions, a large predator may or may not attack a man. Nothing within a wild ecosystem is all that predictable. There are so many instances that are driven by conditions at present.

One thing is for certain. The bobcat is NOT the only wild predator that kills deer regularly.

Share

Selective Blindness, Changing Perceptions and the Growing Cultural Divide

Today I laughed. I actually laughed or at least grinned several times. Why? Mostly because I do not willingly exist in what most would consider this “normal” world – normal being whatever each individual and group of individuals has determined to be correct and thus normal. Because of my sometimes “out-of-planet” experiences, witnessing the normal, but to me, abnormal, events of the day must cause laughter. Without it, I’m not sure the results.

Most entertaining is when intellectuals(?) wander down roads of philosophical bliss, pointing out the obvious, created by the obvious, for the obvious, but pause in confusion, not understanding such creations, or better yet, intimating that the answer must lie in some unexplored human psyche beyond mortal comprehension. Yikes!

At the root of this laughter, sometimes contrasted with anger and disgust, was a long, sometimes rambling essay of what, in part, was the transformation of human attitudes and perspectives about life in general and living with predators more specifically. The author writes:

We have become tame in Europe, and that is a good thing. Europeans are on the whole no longer wild or savage, as we certainly were a thousand, five hundred, or for that matter sixty-seven years ago. The potential for savagery and bloodthirstiness remains within us, as shown with such dreadful clarity during the war in the former Yugoslavia in 1991?1999. But we are for the most part tame and prefer that state-sanctioned bloodletting on a large scale happen outside the borders of the European Union. And that is, all things considered, a good thing. No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers. The same can be said about our relationship to animals. Most aspects of the living conditions of pets and farm animals are regulated by law in the EU. For wild animals, there are special habitat directives.

My initial reaction to reading this was to ask, what world does this person live in? But then, I realized it wasn’t what world he lived in but my own existence shuns the false world he displays. While what he writes certainly may reflect his perceptions of things, I believe it only substantiates the success of the work of those who control this world and all that is in it. There must be considered the absurdity or insanity that, “state-sanctioned bloodletting” is acceptable beyond the bounds of the newly perceived “tameness.” Talk about living a life of blinded ignorance. To accept the premise of, “No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers,” is to accept a lie and live it. More people would live in fear if they realized that all of this still exists today but is well-hidden. Media control and manipulation, outright lies and deceit, propaganda and control prohibits us from seeing the terrible things that are going on all around us.

The author admits, and accurately so, that this same attitude of blissful blindness and the denial of existing savagery, carries over into how people want to distinguish themselves and their coexistence with animals, both wild and domestic.

To this the writer states:

But something has been lost in the advance of civilization. In pace with the introduction of the refrigerator, hot running water, bathrooms with subfloor heating, and cable TV, our relationship to things wild has changed, especially our attitudes towards the predators among us. The bear, the wolf, the wolverine, the lynx: all have been transformed in our minds into symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions. It is human nature to do so, and in a way, one could argue that this has been the case for much longer than since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, the already simplified traits have become more starkly black and white in modern, highly urbanized societies.

From the perspective of one suffering from “out-of-planet” syndrome, a serious argument could and should be made about whether or not civilization has advanced or regressed. There is no arguing the claim that “attitudes toward predators,” has changed, certainly, that man has established most animals as “symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions” to a point where animals are given equal or superior rights to man and are always discussed with terms using human identification.

We know that out of World Wars I and II, the rapid growth of understanding the human mind and how to control and manipulate it, was exploited, for all the wrong reasons. How did it become possible that our minds see things in a completely different way than how our parents taught us and their parents taught them?

But is this really human nature to see animals from this perverse perspective? I don’t think so. It is learned or probably, in this case, planned programming of our minds in order that changes forced onto people for sinister reasons by perverts with more to gain and without one care for the welfare of any animal…or even you for that matter.

The author touches on one of the reasons for the changes in attitude when he writes:

Out in the country, that argument does not hold full sway, at least not in the areas where the predators are actually found. Country people’s empirical knowledge runs deeper and is often — though not always — more complex and objective than city people’s. The problem with European attitudes towards “our” predators, however, is that most Europeans live in cities and not in the countryside.

And the plan, as it appears to me, is to work toward changing the dynamics of human population densities so that urban dwellers surpass in numbers those of the rural world. For certainly their exists differing attitudes and perspectives between the two cultures. It would make perfect sense that if someone or group of someones was interested in control they would work using whatever means possible to grow the numbers of whichever side was ideologically prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause. This may sound a bit extreme, but is it in reality? When you consider the words, the attitudes, the hate and the anger being perpetuated throughout, often targeted or presented as urban against suburban, somebody must have an important task to undertake.

We are but duped pawns!

Share

Coal (No Deer) in Your Stocking

Share

Of Course It Was Presence of Garbage Cans That Caused “Coyote” To Attack 3-Year-Old Girl in Washington

“On Thursday, father Douglas Lucas says his three-year-old daughter was attacked by a coyote who came up to the front porch of their home and pounced on the child.”

“The city of Snoqualmie suggests that people keep trash cans inside their garage until garbage pick-up day. They say the smell of food is the main thing that lures animals to homes.”<<<Read More>>>

Share