April 24, 2017

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.


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!


Vermont Moose Study: Ah, Say What?

Maybe there is still hope to save the moose. In an article found Online at The Sun, Vermont Fish and Game biologists are quoted as saying, “Winter ticks spread more rapidly when moose are overabundant,” said Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department’s lead moose biologist. “Although we decreased Vermont’s moose herd to reduce the impacts of moose on the landscape, it may have also contributed to the much lower rates of winter ticks on Vermont’s moose than biologists observe on moose in New Hampshire or Maine.”

However, there are a couple of thing also written in this article that makes me pause and exclaim, SAY WHAT?

For those with some knowledge know that the media, most often fed by fish and wildlife departments, lay the blame of reduced moose populations squarely on global warming, even when there is no science to support such a claim. As we have learned, global warming is a very convenient excuse for everything. And of course, we have reached a point in moose studies where scientists seem to agree that much of the loss of moose through the United States is caused by the infestation of moose ticks, or winter ticks – Dermacentor albipictus. The problem is that it appears there is no agreement as to why there appears to be a problem of too many ticks and too many moose dying from those ticks. Many simply want to lay the entire blame on some fabricated idea of a warming climate. Certainly weather, as has been shown, affects tick survival and perpetuation. Weather is NOT global warming.

Now Vermont is whistling a different tune: “Vermont has already taken steps to help reduce the issue of the winter ticks by increasing the number of licenses sold to hunt moose in recent years. This has taken the population of the species from over 5,000 in the state in the early 2000s to around 2,200 moose today. The species is healthiest at medium densities…” This is perhaps the first I’ve heard of this claimed deliberate action to reduce Vermont’s moose population.

In the “Say What?” category we read:

“As seasons in recent years have warmed up, the winter ticks have been more able to survive and reproduce in the winter.” Winter ticks don’t “reproduce” in winter.

“They don’t pose a problem to deer because deer evolved with the species present…” I don’t understand what the embolden statement means. Somebody help me! I’ve fallen and can’t get up!



Attempting to Resolve Maine’s Moose Management Dilemma With Half a Solution

Maine is working on developing big game management plans for deer, bear, moose and turkeys that will span the next 15 years. They have yet to release a “draft” management plan and so all we are able to get our hands on are bits and pieces. Please bear that in mind in considering the information to be presented in this article.

There’s one thing about drafting plans and management goals that I don’t think very many people understand – at least that is sure how it appears to me. Goals and projected achievements should be reasonable and attainable. Anything short of that, or greatly exceeding that, is dishonest, if not a complete waste of time.

From information I was reading the other day on George Smith’s latest article that contains some proposals being considered for these management plans, the first thing the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) will need to do is increase their working staff by about 400% – it may take more than that. Other than that, the proposals I am reading are mostly pie in the sky – “hope and change.” They appear much too grand. However…..

I want to take a moment and examine some of the proposals for moose management that Smith lists in his column. After listing out how the MDIFW is going to increase this perception from the public and decrease that perception from the public, while at the same time hoping planning to reduce the moose population, while at the same time make everyone feel good that the chances of hunting a moose have been cut in half in recent years, we see the following listed at the end of the long and quite ambitious proposals to manage moose:

“Develop an improved understanding of the role of winter ticks and moose density in annual adult cow and calf survival rates.

“Implement management actions to stabilize or decrease winter tick effects on moose mortality.”


Maine and much of Northern New England are in the midst of a moose study. They are collaring moose and collecting data. It would seem the most data gets collected when a moose succumbs to winter ticks. From this proposal then, we are to assume that MDIFW is working on, or hopes to work on, or if “luck” goes their way they might be able to work on, “improved understanding” of the role winter ticks and moose density play in survival rates. And it appears this is what most of us are looking for. But is that enough? Will the ongoing study parameters give us what we really need to understand what is going on? What we read in these two proposals is typical double speak – lots of undefined gray areas. “Improved Understanding?” Maybe somebody could explain what that means. No, I’m not just being the usual pain in the ass. What does it mean? If collaring some moose shows more moose died than was first thought, is that “improved understanding?” What will that accomplish in providing any information that would assist in “implement management actions” to offset the negative effects of the winter tick?

After MDIFW figures out how to “improve” their understanding, they hope plan to come up with a management objective that will “stabilize or decrease winter tick effects on moose mortality.” One can only hope. How can they actually do that if they don’t have but half of the information needed? I believe this to be a valid and extremely important question.

I don’t know how Smith came up with the order in which he listed highlights of actions being proposed for moose management, but this idea of “improved understanding” and “actions to stabilize or decrease” winter tick effects on moose are the last two items listed. It seems to me that most of the items above in this list can be disregarded until such time as MDIFW figures out how many moose there are, and how many moose can healthily inhabit the Maine woods. Right now they don’t know and I have serious doubts they ever will. Here’s an example of what we are all subjected to on a regular basis and I’m sure that, from what I have seen, MDIFW is just as guilty as the next guy.

The Boston Globe ran a story today about how moose in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are being “devastated” by winter ticks. For those seeking some truth, it seems plausible that moose are dying because of the winter tick. We have no idea if this is a lot more than “normal” or “average” or perhaps it’s far smaller than in previous years. If you think you have a firm grip on the answer, please provide readers with all the studies and reports on how winter ticks effect moose populations. I thought so. Hopefully, the moose studies underway can answer some of the questions but it can’t answer all of them because there are no studies from the past to compare with. We might get a grip on how many moose are being killed under present conditions, or at least for the duration of the study, but what is there to compare these results with to know if the numbers are good, bad or the same? We are then left to guess…or should be, but, it will not be that way. If things go as they usually do when it comes to such studies, conclusions will be irresponsibly drawn and plastered in the “Fake News” Press about the same crap sandwich we have been fed for quite some time now. GLOBAL WARMING. It’s the convenient answer to everything.

Here’s further explanation. In reading the Boston Globe article, which is no different than any other news or magazine article, in which they must, evidently, get their news from members of the fish and game departments or those conducting the studies, anyone can easily determine that winter ticks are “devastating” moose and the reason for the ticks is caused by a warming climate.

Rinse and repeat!

Winter ticks are “devastating” moose and the reason for the tick increase is caused by a warming climate.

Rinse and repeat!

The echo chamber is in full saturation mode – probably by design and unbeknownst to those entrusted to apply the real scientific method. We live in a post-normal scientific world, ruled by Scientism, and controlled by Environmentalism. What else can be expected?

Everybody loves Bullwinkle….don’t they? Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!” But nobody cares much for a blood sucking tick. Eewwww! People really wouldn’t even want to discuss winter ticks if they could see a few tens of thousands of them, on one moose, blood-engorged and clinging onto a moose, draining it of all it’s life.

So what is the emotional thing to do? That’s right. Let’s spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and study….wait for it….the moose. Not that studies and learning about moose, etc., aren’t good ideas. In this case, the whole world seems to have it well in hand that winter ticks are “devastating” moose and the cause is ticks embellished by a warming climate. How does the Boston Globe, and all other news outlets, along with countless fish and game biologists and administrators, know that “Global Warming” is the cause of an increased load of winter ticks? Answer? They don’t. But the echo chamber, the rinse and repeat, has ignorantly and irresponsibly told the world this is so. And so, it is conveniently repeated – post-normal Scientism.

If this is so, and you have a firm grasp on the concept, please provide readers with a viable list of studies done on the winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus). No, no, no! I don’t want all those items of propaganda in which one clown copy and pasted from another clown and is now presented by any entity having to deal with winter ticks on their website and printed in literature. I mean, honest to goodness, scientifically processed, winter tick studies which include, not only the life cycle but what increases and decreases a tick’s chances of finding a host of blood for the winter. Is it the timing of the onset of winter and cold? Is it weather…not climate? Is it the vegetation available in specific regions? Does wind, rain, frost, snow, etc. have anything to do with it and if so, what? What are the low and high temperatures in which ticks can and cannot survive, and what is the duration of being exposed to those temperatures that might cause death? I also want information about where these ticks are found, geographically, and how the same ticks in different global regions and climate, if there are any beside Maine, survive and their related habits and functions to reproduce and perpetuate. How do these ticks effect other animals? If all of this is being assumed, and it is, how, then, can an honest scientists draw valid conclusions about how winter ticks effect the survival of the moose?

If you want some help finding those, let me know. I have about the only 2 or 3 studies that exist. I must also say, of the studies on this winter tick that do exist, nothing in the system of study and conclusions would support the theory (Fake News) that global warming is causing an increase in tick populations. Perhaps that disappointment is the reason the tick is not looked at.

But, I know you won’t go look.

So, if we are seriously interested in the “improved understanding” of how winter ticks effect moose and moose density, which is the only way any reasonable “management actions to stabilize or decrease winter ticks” can be accomplished, we must study the tick!

But will the tick be studied? I can almost guarantee that it will not be. Why? Because of fear that a study of the tick might prove that man’s created idea of global warming has nothing to do with the ticks. Then where would the money and job security go? We all know, or should by now, that the quickest way to lose grant money for studies and research, is to find cures and solutions. God forbid that should happen.

I can already conclude that the results of the moose study will, more than likely, be that winter ticks are killing moose at a rate greater than first anticipated, that it is caused by a warming climate, that moose hunting permits will be drastically cut, or eliminated, because social demands in Maine call for over 100,000 moose for lazy-ass moose gawkers.

After all, they can’t see those nasty ticks from their climate controlled automobiles.

Biggest Coyote/Deer Study Ongoing

*Editor’s Note* – In the teaser I placed just below, the author of the article about the relationship between coyotes in the East and deer, says, “Shooting the occasional coyote really makes no difference in what happens to the deer herd.” In the context of the article the “occasional” coyote is described as a “transient” coyote, i.e. one looking to establish a new territory. I have to somewhat disagree with this statement. I understand the dynamics of “resident” coyotes versus “transient” coyotes, but to state that shooting a transient coyote makes no difference in what happens to the deer herd is not completely an accurate or honest statement. It would make sense if all that was being targeted were transient coyotes, but such is not the case. While targeting the resident crop of coyotes is probably more effective at protecting a local deer herd, stopping a transient from continuing its search for another territory to take over certainly has its benefits. Perhaps not a direct effect but nonetheless it could slow down or stop the progression of more coyotes in more places.

Regardless, all this reminds me of what Dr. Val Geist, in 1994, told the annual Southeast Deer Study Group meeting in Charlottesville, Virginia, as they were facing perceived problems of what to do about too many deer. Geist told them, “Enjoy your problem while it lasts, because the coyote is coming. Once he’s here, you’ll miss your deer problems.”

“Resident coyotes, Chamberlain observed, have relatively small home ranges of 2 to 25 miles. Transients, on the other hand, may roam 150 miles, presumably looking for a home range to open up. Once a resident coyote dies, a transient will settle in and claim the territory within a matter of weeks. This helps explain why trapping efforts weren’t working. “For every 10 coyotes you remove, three were just passing through,” Chamberlain says. “And if you’re removing transients, you’re not really having any effect.” Shooting the occasional coyote really makes no difference in what happens to the deer herd.”<<<Read More>>>

Can coyote predation risk induce reproduction suppression in white-tailed deer?


Predators can have powerful nonconsumptive effects on their prey by inducing behavioral, physiological, and morphological responses. These nonconsumptive effects may influence prey demography if they decrease birthrates or increase susceptibility to other sources of mortality. The Reproductive Suppression Model suggests that iteroparous species may maximize their lifetime reproductive success by suppressing their reproduction until a future time, when conditions may be more favorable. Coyote (Canis latrans) range expansion in the United States has exposed white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) populations to increased predation risk, and coyote predation can have profound effects on white-tailed deer reproductive success. We evaluated effects of temporal variation in predation risk (i.e., coyote–deer ratios) on fecundity and reproductive success of white-tailed deer on the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center in southwestern Georgia, United States, by exploiting a rapid decline in coyote abundance to establish a natural experiment. We measured fecundity by examining ovaries for evidence of ovulation, and measured reproductive success using evidence of lactation from deer harvested before and after the decline in coyote abundance. We found that incidence of ovulation and lactation increased following the decline in predation risk. Our results suggest coyotes may be able to influence deer recruitment, independent of direct predation, through interactions that result in reduced fecundity. More broadly, our study suggests that in order to understand the totality of the effect of predators on prey population dynamics, studies should incorporate measures of direct and indirect predator effects.<<<Read More>>>

Moose: And Just What Is That Legacy We Are Leaving Our Grandchildren?

Yesterday I was reading George Smith’s article about how, according to a representative of the New Hampshire fish and game department, in 20 years the moose will all be gone. Smith quotes the N.H. official as saying, “…in less than 20 years moose will be gone from this state save for a remnant population. How sad of a legacy we are leaving our grandchildren.” So, what’s the legacy?

I’m guessing from what I’ve read in the past from this N.H. official and from Mr. Smith, that their idea of the legacy we are leaving our grandchildren is that global warming is going to kill us all – moose first I guess.

I might be inclined to support a statement that in less than 20 years moose will be all but extirpated if wildlife scientists cannot find their way clear of this nonsense about global warming. Changing the title of their religion to Climate Change, changes nothing. I doubt that any of these environmentalist “True Believers” know and understand the difference between weather and climate.

Out of one corner of their delusional minds they speak of how severe winters are killing off our wildlife. Next up, sometimes in the same breath, we are told how global warming is killing our wildlife. When you ask these clowns how both severe winters and global warming can coexist, they tell us that one of the symptoms of global warming is changes in weather patterns. One should be so ignorantly fickle. And how convenient. This rates right up there with the dog ate my homework.

If Climate Change was real, and if Maine’s moose, deer and Aunt Mildred are all being negatively affected by a warming climate, then, according to their own VooDoo science, it just can’t be. According to Maine environmental-type wildlife biologists, white-tailed deer in Maine struggle to survive because they are on the fringe of the animal’s northern most range. And, yes, we are also told, that because of that northern fringe, severe winters regularly kill off the deer. If we were suffering from a warming climate, deer should be, generally speaking, growing in numbers in Maine due to fewer and less severe winters. Are they? And the moose would be migrating north. Are they? And would the moose migrate north in such a short span of time that we have seen the moose decline in Maine so drastically in only a matter of perhaps a half-dozen years? The answers to any of these questions becomes one of convenience, i.e. whatever fits the narrative for the moment.

If any legacy is to be left behind as it pertains to moose, it will be that Romance Biology and VooDoo Science fell in love with the money-making nonsense of global warming and they failed to apply the real scientific process as a way to find out what’s really killing some animals. We can only hope this won’t happen. I’m not holding my breath though.

For readers, just yesterday I provided you a brief commentary and a link to an article where New Brunswick, Canada and Maine are sharing in another study of collaring deer to see what’s killing them. I wanted to know when will scientists begin to look at something other than global warming? I also wanted to know when, pertaining to the moose, scientists will study the winter tick? I think I know the answer.

I find this not unlike a perceived social issue in this country about guns. All the debate is about getting rid of guns. But is the problem guns or should we be asking ourselves what causes a person to want to kill another person?

Generally speaking, our wildlife scientists blame everything on global warming. Across this country, moose populations, we are told, are dwindling. The only reason given? Global Warming. From out of the depths of trodden-under science, finally we begin to hear the rumblings and grumblings that global warming is having an effect on moose but that large predators, i.e. the gray wolf and bears are the main culprits. Perhaps there’s hope.

In northern New England there appears to be a consensus growing that the winter tick is the culprit that’s having the greatest negative effect on the moose. However, the same consensus ignorantly just keep repeating the nonsense that the growth in winter ticks is cause by, you guessed it, global warming.

For those who have been regulars readers to this website, you know that I have written extensively about the winter tick and provided you with links to the scant few studies that exist about the winter tick. What bothers me most about continually reading that global warming causes the ticks to grow in number, is that it is not supported in any of the studies I have found and read about. This tick has a range that covers just about all of North America. It is a hardy parasite that is not readily effected by warm and cold. And yet, all we hear is how global warming is the problem. There has never existed, that I am aware of, any thought from these biologists as to what effect too large a population of moose has on the winter tick. NOPE! It’s always and forever, GLOBAL WARMING.

The legacy may well be that because today’s wildlife biologists, spoon-fed Romance Biology, failed to study the winter tick, instead of spending a few hundred thousands of dollars collaring and counting dead moose, in less than 20 years the moose will be gone.

Stop blaming climate change, as though it was some new phenomenon that exists because man exists. The climate is always changing. The weather is always changing. Time to move on.

And as always, I’ll provide you a way out:


If It Never Rained Again, Nothing Would Get Wet

Brilliance! And a complete waste of time, money, resources and ink to publish a ridiculous bunch of nonsense in the New York Times about why the East should “let cougars return” in order to save lives because they would eat deer that causes deaths due to automobile collisions.

But that’s not the issue I have with this article. The issue here is that information is presented as a “scientific study” that shows how many lives would be saved, along with money, etc. The brilliance comes when the author says, “The scientists studied 19 states, including South Carolina, Maine, Wisconsin, Ohio and Missouri. Four other states — Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland and Illinois — were part of the eastern cougar’s historic range, which was wiped out by the early 1900s. However, those states do not have enough open forestland to support viable cougar populations, the scientists said.” (emphasis added)

If the “scientists” knew that there is no habitat to support a viable cougar population, which anyone with half a brain should be able to conclude probably that’s why there are not very many cougars in the East, then why waste the time and money to devise a stupid “scientific study” of how cougars can save lives? Perhaps the “scientists” are suggesting that if we killed a few million people in the East and restored the habitat just for cougars, we could save lives. But then again, if we did that, there would be no vehicle collisions with deer.

BRILLIANCE! And if it never rained again, nothing would get wet. This is science?


Intestinal parasites of wolves in northern and western Canada


Gray wolves (Canis lupus L., 1758) are mobile opportunistic predators that can be infected by a wide range of parasites, with many acquired via predator-prey relationships. Historically, many of these parasites were identified only to genus or family, but genetic tools now enable identification of parasite fauna to species and beyond. We examined 191 intestines from wolves harvested for other purposes from regions in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Adult helminths were collected from intestinal contents for morphological and molecular identification, and for a subset of wolves, fecal samples were also analyzed to detect helminth eggs and protozoan (oo)cysts. Using both detection methods, we found that 83% of 191 intestines contained one or more parasite species, including cestodes (Taenia spp., Echinococcus spp., and Diphyllobothrium sp.), nematodes (Uncinaria stenocephala, Trichuris spp., Physaloptera spp., and Toxascaris leonina), a trematode (Alaria sp.), and protozoa (Sarcocystis spp., Giardia spp., and Cryptosporidium spp.). Molecular characterization identified one species of Diphyllobothrium (D. latum), three species of Taenia (T. krabbei, T. hydatigena, and T. multiceps), and two Giardia assemblages (B and C). These results demonstrate the diverse diet of wolves, and illustrate the possibility of parasite spillover among wildlife, domestic animals, and people.<<<Read More>>>

Understanding Coyote Behavior Can Contribute to Better Study Results

Below I emboldened part of a statement found in the article I linked to. Anyone who has maybe just slightly more than a basic understanding of how and when coyotes prey on fawn deer, would know that this killing occurs within moments of birth. Coyotes are bright animals and territorial. They know their habitat. They learn where deer, a creature of habit, often fawn. They will, at times, lay and wait. Coyotes have a keen sense of smell and can often “smell” when a fawn is born and move in for the kill. These same senses can be attributed to other predators that prey on deer, especially fawns – bear, bobcat, lynx, etc.

I have a camp in Maine. Around that camp, for many, many years I have been witness to a female deer that has given birth to a fawn(s). I’m quite certain the current resident doe is a descendant of the first mother deer I saw years ago.

It is on more occasions than not, that I see her in the early summer, “fawnless,” but is a treat to spot her with little ones.

When I first built the camp, shortly after spending some time there, I learned where this particular doe would go to drop her fawn. So did the coyotes. Over time, the deer have made several attempts to find a place to fawn that is safer. What may surprise some people is that the doe moves to within feet of my camp and hides her fawn there. After a week or two, when the fawn is quite capable of getting around, they disappear into the deeper forest, seldom to be seen again.

In association with this event, I am now seeing coyotes around my camp lot where I never did before. This is not a coincidence.

“These studies used a method that allowed fawns to be captured and collared at birth. Researchers did this by capturing adult does in the summer or fall and implanting a vaginal transmitter. When she gives birth to the fawn, she also gives birth to this implant and it signals the researchers to run in and mark the newborn fawn. With this approach, researchers discovered a lot of predation takes place that first week. In fact, the first week is the worst for fawn mortality from predators, especially coyotes. They concluded that all studies done with captured fawns that missed the first week underestimated the total fawn mortality due to coyotes.”<<<Read More>>>

When Pocket Warming is Perceived as Being Global

This morning I was reading an article in Scientific American. I have decided not to provide a link to the story, because I’m sick and tired of providing readers with links to go and read mostly utter nonsense – or as Jim Beers calls it, Romance Biology and the marriage of Romance Biology and Voodoo Science.

There are places where moose generally are found in the Lower 48 States, where moose are struggling to sustain. Of course outcome-based voodoo science, combined with Romance Biology, yields but one answer – Climate Change (this used to be called Global Warming.) Some portions of Alaska appear to show signs of changes due to climate fluctuations but to read about it, one would think the bush will soon become the new haven for bikini-clad Spring breakers.

What’s puzzling in all of this is that these so-called scientists love to extol the negative effects of their small-minded thinking about climate change, and yet never do we hear about the other changes that one would think should be taking place if the warming actually exists. For instance, in Maine, it seems the excuse-du-jour for a shrinking moose population is the infestation of winter ticks caused by…wait for it…a warming climate. (This statement is made when nobody, as near as I can tell, has ever really studied up on what’s available for scientific data of winter ticks. If they had, they would be a bit skeptical to continue blaming winter ticks on warming.) If this subtle(?) bit of warming, which I doubt Maine is experiencing upon examination of the past 10 winters, so greatly and quickly effects the moose population, then one might suspect that because of the warming, the white-tail deer would be thriving, along with other species that do well in a warmer climate.

The excuse-du-jour for white-tail deer is that the animal in Maine is at the northern fringe of its habitat and that the deer does really well in warmer climates. So, if the moose is moving north, because of climate change, it should make sense that the white-tail deer is also moving north, along with alligators and boa constrictors.

Weather patterns are always changing – always have been and I suspect always will. We like to blame man because the moose in many parts of the contiguous United States, mostly disappeared due to over hunting. I’m not dumb enough to think man didn’t contribute a lot to over hunting of the moose, but maybe fluctuations in weather patters (real climate change) contributed to it as well, and beginning in the 1980s in Maine, conditions were right to promote moose growth, coupled with better moose management. And, perhaps the increase in winter ticks is as much due to an overgrown population of moose as it is to someone’s perception of a warming climate.

It amazes me how scientists take a broad, sweeping stroke with their brushes when conducting a very small, in comparison, geographical-area study that might show signs of a fluctuation in climate, i.e. some warming, and then declare the globe is warming, and yet temperature readings GLOBALLY do not reflect that. Perhaps in that one pocket temperatures are different.

Back in February of 2010, I attempted to explain the differences between GLOBAL warming and what I began calling POCKET warming:

The use of the term global warming has morphed into a generic excuse for anything under the sun (pun sort of intended). When the term global warming is used, it is assumed to mean the man-made variety. That has since evolved into climate change and other assorted descriptive names like climate disruption.

There are at least two locations here in the U.S. where moose populations are on the decline. Ed Bangs, wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said moose in Yellowstone National Park [are] on the decline due to “climate disruption”, that moose are too sensitive to the warmth. He said that moose will then lie around and wait for wolves to show up and eat them to save them from the climate disruption pain and suffering.

In Minnesota, moose populations are on the decline and once again officials point a finger at global warming. But it can’t be global warming because all around both of these areas the moose are doing quite well. So we either have Pocket Warming or, God forbid, something else in common. I wonder what it could be?

There’s lots of money to be made studying climate change. Like seeking a cure for cancer, it will never happen provided the money keeps pouring in for more studies. One of the very negative results of excuse-du-jour climate change is that it is always presented, like cancer, as an incurable disease. This becomes a “convenient truth” (excuse) and the answer to everything. While this blinded nonsense continues, nothing is learned and nothing changes.