October 17, 2021

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.



Ticks Cause of New Hampshire Moose Deaths

But, people calling themselves biologists insist on using non scientific, nonsense about man-caused global warming to explain increased numbers of ticks.

A New Hampshire Fish and Game biologist is encouraging Granite State moose lovers to get involved in the fight against climate change so the species can continue to live here.

According to Kristine Rines, warm winters are causing parasites to decimate the moose population. In response, Fish and Game is considering cutting the number of available moose permits.

I wonder if these people even understand that there is a difference between weather and climate? The average Joe looks out the window and sees little snow and experiences temperatures this winter as being above normal. Because of brainwashing, they think what they are seeing is something called “global warming” – a political ruse designed to steal tax dollars and control human masses.

There is no real scientific evidence to support man-caused climate change. In reality, real science is showing that we are in a cooling trend and that trend may continue for several more years. This comes on the heels of a decade of warming. The weather outside today has little to do with climate change.

I also wonder if any of these scientists have actually done any research on the winter tick, or do they just echo the lies being fed to them that snow and cold will kill the tick? It is repeated, like a broken record, that to ease the mortality of moose (because environmentalists, anti-hunters, moose watchers, and brainwashed “biologists” think tons of moose for everyone to see from their vehicles is good) we need to have longer, colder, snowier winters. The duration of cold and the amount of cold is nearly impossible to achieve anywhere in the lower 48 states.

There are few scientific studies on the winter tick. Most of what exists is nothing but repeated theories perpetuated by environmentalist in order to further instill fear in people over a fake crisis called global warming/climate change. However, what studies that do exist, tell us that winter ticks have been around for a long time and are widespread, to exist in climates as warm as Texas and as cold as the Yukon.

The repeated myth that cold, snowy winters will kill the ticks and thus allow the populations of moose to grow, is not supported scientifically. Winter Ticks on Moose and Other Ungulates: Factors Influencing Their Population Size – William M. Samuel and Dwight A. Welch, tells us that there is not scientific evidence to indicate that the winter ticks alone kill moose. It is the existence of circumstances, combined with the existence of ticks and their quantities, that contribute to moose mortality.

Biologists and others cry out for the need of cold and snowy weather, when, in actuality, they may be seeking a death wish for the moose. Tick-infested moose, the result being loss of protective hair and anemia, are extremely susceptible to severe cold, especially the later in the winter it appears.

Samuel and Welch tell us also that in order for cold weather to have a negative effect on the winter ticks you need 6 consecutive days in which the temperature does not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit. We simply don’t realize or refuse to learn that these ticks are extremely hardy and resilient. There are other weather related conditions that can be more effective in reducing tick infestation of moose.

We are told that in late summer, these ticks begin climbing vegetation. When a moose walks by, the ticks attach themselves to the moose for the long winter ride. The study showed that during this vegetation climb, if windy weather persists, the wind easily knocks the tick off the vegetation and then they must begin the long arduous climb back up the vegetation. If this persists, it can greatly reduce the number of ticks that get on the backs of moose.

What is almost never discussed when talking about ticks is that in order for the tick to survive, it needs a blood meal host, i.e. the moose. This tick does cling to other animals but moose are more susceptible to ticks because of poor grooming habits. Why then, with the tick needing a blood meal host, is it not discussed that perhaps we are trying to grow moose numbers to a population level that is simply to high?

It has been suggested that perhaps locating moose “licks” – a mineral or salt block – that contains a chemical to kill the ticks after moose feed from the lick. This may be a good idea or not. If we then essentially rid the country of winter ticks, what are the residual effects of the greater ecosystem? Do we know?

While growing moose or any other game animal to artificially high numbers, may have its benefits, maybe we are fight against Mother Nature instead of understand and working with her.

It is, however, idiotic and irresponsible to continue the mantra of climate change, climate change, climate change. We can blame climate change until we vomit but it will never address the scientific realities we face. The climate is always changing. It has always changed and it will continue to change. What then is the difference in how we are choosing to deal with winter ticks? I don’t think it’s that difficult after you are willing to be a scientist seeking truthful answers.



Age and Antlers — Deer-Forest Study — Penn State University

I’ve looked at thousands of deer jaws; observed and handled hundreds of deer in 3 different states; and worked with white-tailed deer for 2 decades.

Can I accurately age a deer from a photograph? Or by antler size? Absolutely not!

Why? Because it’s not possible. And anyone who tells you different is pulling your leg (to put it mildly).

Source: Age and Antlers — Deer-Forest Study — Penn State University


Study: A deadly spring for NH moose calves

*Editor’s Note* – Of the millions of dollars we have spent to pay wildlife managers and it appears they still haven’t come to terms with the fact that managing wildlife involves manipulating populations that create healthy numbers at sustainable levels. Perhaps if we spend enough money (I doubt it seriously) in order that these “managers” have time to figure out that it is management that creates desired balances and not Mother Nature, with it will come the realization that managing wildlife populations because of social demands (wildlife watching and back yard feeding) is, in affect, destroying wildlife.

I’m not holding my breath for any great epiphanies.

Also note that the article uses a few “expects” and “possibilities” in employing its fortune telling.

Rines said it will take a while to fully understand the relationship among changing weather conditions, tick density and moose populations. And warmer winters make it easier for white-tailed deer to survive, she said. Deer herds are growing.

She noted that “if we want to make moose a serious issue, we need to look at keeping our deer densities lower.”

Source: Study: A deadly spring for NH moose calves | New Hampshire


100-Plus Years to Realize What Settlers Learned in an Instant

*Editor’s Note* – I’ll never cease to be amazed at ignorance and how deeply ingrained into our society it is….or, this is simply a good money-making, job-security undertaking – “managing” wolves and acting stupid.

As settlers moved West, it was only a matter of hours before they figured out wolves were a problem. Add a few days to that and they soon realized killing one wolf caught with its paw in the cookie jar, didn’t stop wolves from attacking and killing more livestock…and sometimes people.

Push the clock ahead around over a hundred years, and brilliant, well-indoctrinated wildlife biologists, through ten years worth of data collection, are beginning to come to the conclusion that killing a problem wolf here and there, solves nothing.

But, just in case you’ve been asleep the past 20 years, the American people were lied to about wolves, wolf behavior and what kind of an impact (re)introducing wolves would have on people and livestock – THEY LIED!

Refusing to consider history, both in the United States and around the world, lying wolf pimps pushed for a (re)introduction – it meant millions of dollars. Ignorant Americans bought the lie. Most were just psychopaths in love with nasty wild dogs.

The history is clear! Wolves and human-settlement will not work. Settlers knew it in an instance. It didn’t take millions of dollars and illegal introductions, along with gobs of time and money spent on trying to figure out what a wolf would do if it found itself living just a short jog to a well-stocked ranch. The wolves attacked and the settlers killed them. And don’t buy into the lie that people killed wolves just because they were afraid of the boogie man. If you consider the intestinal fortitude it took to board a wagon and head into basically wilderness, I don’t think being afraid of wolves was first and foremost on their minds.

After the lies, illegal introductions of diseased wolves were let go, with no consideration of the Endangered Species Act of which is their cash cow.

Twenty years later, Montana wildlife officials think they have a better understanding of how to deal with wolves that become a problem for ranchers and their livestock. PROFOUND ISN’T IT?

Pick up a damned history book! It’s a no-brainer! Cheap too.

Ten years of data looking at how wolf-pack size and distribution predict livestock attacks has helped wolf managers improve their tools for protecting cattle and sheep. Livestock deaths have shown a steady decline in the past several years.

“When wolves were just starting to come back – when they were still federally protected – the goal was get them recovered and off the endangered species list,” Bradley said. “Sometimes those removals were conservative – one here and one there, to see if that would work. What we found was those small removals weren’t effective.

”In a cursory view, Bradley’s results seem obvious: Remove a wolf pack, remove a livestock problem.

Source: Wolf management reaching new levels of success in region | Local | missoulian.com


Predator-Prey Study: Wolves not threat to deer you may think

*Editor’s Note* – I have not read the entire report referenced in the below link. Most of the information presented is sensible and seems to substantiate most all other real scientific studies on predator prey relationships.

However, it still amazes me that Mr. Beyer, one of the DNR researchers makes some puzzling and seemingly contradictory statements. First he is quoted as saying that wolves will NOT decimate a deer herd. This is followed by: “What we know from the scientific literature is there are only two reports where wolves are believed to have contributed to a substantial reduction of deer … winter weather is still the driving factor, even in the low-snow zone,”

Even though the article begins by stating that there are several factors involved with trying to determine predator prey relationships, all of a sudden it now appears that none of that matters because “only two reports” suggest that wolves are believed to decimate deer herds.

I don’t know those reports but I’m willing to wager they are pro wolf, fake science reports.

I will not dispute that winter weather is a driving force of great influence on deer survival. Perhaps Beyer believes that 100 years from now there will be wolves, coyotes and deer sharing habit – and there may well be. But what happens in the interim? We cannot control the weather. We can only mitigate disease with good sound wildlife management. The possibility exists that wild swings in deer populations will be a reality. We also know through scientific studies that with the right combination of circumstances, uncontrolled large predators can easily destroy a deer herd and keep it at levels that are unsustainable. If this is the conditions in which the DNR believes will not decimate a deer herd, then one has to believe their goals will be the elimination of hunting as a management tool.

All this being said, the data being shared in this article reinforces what many of us have always known about the relationship of deer with weather and predators.

“We’ve been surprised by a few things in Phase I (low-snow study),” notes Dean Beyer, a researcher with the DNR. “We learned that adult does were avoiding core wolf areas and that coyotes were avoiding them, too. That put coyotes and does in the same area, which probably resulted in a greater mortality by coyotes. And we were all surprised by the rate at which bobcats killed fawns. The rate is much higher than other species.”

Source: Predator-Prey Study: Wolves not threat to deer you may think | MLive.com