March 17, 2018

Vermont Continues To Reduce Moose Permit Allotments

It appears that the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife has decided, once again, to cut back on moose hunting permits. Where once there were 25 permits issued, authorities are recommending only 14 be issued this year.

A news article said the decision is based on the continued reduction of the moose herd because of, “…infestations of ticks and brain worms believed to be caused by the warming climate.”

If this was a game where you could buy a clue, the clue to buy would be this: So long as fish and wildlife departments continue to wallow in the deep manure pile of “global warming” they will never find any real answers to wildlife management problems.

Evidently, that’s the easiest mode of operation and are we to now believe the most lucrative?




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!




Lynx in South Vermont – Driven There by Global Warming?

*Editor’s Note* – If readers have even a basic understanding about Canada lynx, including its history, the tone of the information found in the below article, is typical environmentalism’s clap-trap nonsense. History tells us that lynx in Vermont, at any time in history, is a very rare thing and most likely any spotting of such a critter is the result of a wayward male lynx looking for a place to settle down. It is nonsense for Vermont and other locations, where sustained habitat and available prey is nonexistent, to “protect” a species that, even under the best of conditions, is never going to sustain itself. A simple occasional spotting of a Canada lynx in southern Vermont should be a welcomed indication that the species, overall, is very healthy and doing remarkably well…but to environmentalists, that’s never good enough. 

Also of note, we are repeatedly told that global warming is much the cause of the absence of lynx on the landscape of the United States and yet this particular lynx seems to be traveling outside the southern boundary of its range. We find the same with other species. The hoax of climate change, as presented by a fascist government, becomes only a convenient excuse when control, power and greed are at stake. 

“A lone Canada lynx was photographed in the southern Vermont town of Londonderry this June, marking the first confirmed evidence of lynx in Vermont outside the Northeast Kingdom in decades. Lynx are listed as ‘threatened’ under the federal Endangered Species Act and ‘endangered’ in the state of Vermont.

The lynx was photographed in the back yard of a rural Londonderry home. Biologists with the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department confirmed the identification of the animal from the photos and visited the site to confirm the location of the photos.”<<<Read More>>>



Predator Hunting in Maine Has Caused the Deer Population to “Thrive?”

A report filed with the Portland Press Herald about Northern New England’s plans to issue more permits to kill antlerless deer to control the deer herds, states that: “Hunting of predators, like coyotes, has also helped deer thrive. Maine’s hunting season for coyotes is open year-round, unlike the seasons for deer, moose and bears, which are short and restricted.”

I think it would be responsible for the newspaper to produce some data to support that claim. While there have been pockets of effort to work toward the control of coyotes/wolves, I have serious doubts that any of that effort can honestly be translated into, “has also helped the deer thrive” and thus contribute in any way toward the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s notion that portions of Maine have too many deer due to ONE mild winter.


Taking Aim at Vermont Coyotes

“Erik Hammond has killed or been hunting with someone who has killed more than 500 coyotes since he started hunting them six years ago. He will continue on with his hunt to help out farmers and Vermont’s deer population.”<<<Read More>>>


State says coywolves are no myth

“They certainly are in Vermont,” said Louis Porter, commissioner for the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife. “There’s a continuum of canid (a mammal from the dog family) species that go all the way from coyotes to Eastern wolves. Any individual (animal) can fall on that continuum depending on what their genetic makeup is.”

Technically speaking, a coywolf is the informal term for a hybrid descended from coyotes and a gray, Eastern or red wolf.

“We’ve had at least one case where it was pretty definitivel

Source: State says coywolves are no myth  : Rutland Herald Online – – Gmail


Understanding Wildlife Conservation

I read yesterday a letter to the editor of a newspaper in New England. The complaint from the reader/writer was that New Hampshire’s fish and wildlife department wasn’t “conserving” wildlife because they didn’t reduce the number of hunting permits for deer when Maine and Vermont did.

The writer first claimed that because New Hampshire was “wedged between” Maine and Vermont, and those two states suffered deer mortality due to a severe winter, that, “Presumably, the impact on New Hampshire’s deer herd suffered the same toll…”

It’s difficult to respond on a case by case basis, just as well as it is difficult to offer criticism on a case by case basis unless one has all the facts, along with the background to understand those facts. I’m not saying we all should be quiet and blindly let any government agency do anything without keeping a close eye on them and speaking out when necessary.

With all this in mind, let me say that a properly, well-operated and truthful, scientific wildlife management department, make their decisions based on what is best for each designated wildlife management district. In short this means that simply because Maine and New Hampshire suffered deer losses due to a “severe winter,” New Hampshire suffered the same throughout the entire state. Please study and understand the components of the Severe Winter indexes and how these are measured according to geographic regions of each state. It’s quite interesting…even if you don’t agree with it.

If we can actually compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, then perhaps one might have reason to think New Hampshire is operating afoul. If it can be proven that science and the welfare of deer is being exploited for money, or some other sinister reason, then by all means show us the facts.

The same writer also complains that she paid “extra money” to purchase “moose plates” believing that money was being used to, “fund conservation efforts for the benefit of the state’s wildlife,” and seemingly believes that because New Hampshire isn’t reducing or ending hunting, her money is not being spent wisely.

I have no idea exactly what her money is being spent on. I can, however, attempt to reassure the writer that a well-allotted hunting season on game animals, i.e. deer, moose, etc., is an important and integral part of a well-proven, scientific, and healthy management plan.

In addition, the writer appears a bit panicked because she has heard that the fish and game department is considering a “hunting season” on bobcats.

Again, I don’t know the details of this proposal, but assuming (a bad thing, I know) that the New Hampshire fish and game department has scientifically determined that there are too many bobcats that are negatively affecting the anthropogenic “balancing” of wildlife, then we should support that action for the betterment of all wildlife species.

There is a balance somewhere between collecting hunting license fees, dispersing the money to wildlife programs and knowing when to increase, reduce or end hunting of a certain species. I pays to be concerned and become involved in that process. It also requires a solid understanding of the total science behind these efforts. It’s not all just about societal demands…yet.


Composting and Bears: Adjusting to Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law

“With more Vermonters choosing to compost, we want to help them prevent any potential problems with bears,” said Hammond. “People can effectively reduce the chances of bears causing damage to their property and protect the bears as well.”

Source: Composting and Bears: Adjusting to Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law : The Outdoor Wire


Finding: Eight of Ten WORST Deer Hunting States in Northeast

Lawrence Pyne has written an article in the Burlington Free Press about the latest “finding” by Wide Open Spaces (WOS) that ranks Vermont the third worst state to deer hunt. WOS also places eight of the top ten worst hunting states as being in the Northeast. According to Pyne’s report, it appears those determining what makes for bad hunting don’t like cold weather, a lot of hunters and want to see deer by the gobs like: “sitting in a padded armchair in a warm shooting house while debating which of the many deer feeding on bait in front of you is a “shooter”.

For me personally, I like reports like this. I only wish Maine had been labeled the worst deer hunting state, highly recommending that EVERYONE stay away from Maine and don’t go hunt there. Maine has few deer. Maine has cold weather. There are still open lands in Maine where a hunter can freely go and hunt. Too many hunters flocking to the state will continue to ruin that freedom.

So, if you’re thinking of going to Maine to deer hunt….FORGEDABOUTIT! It sucks! Oh, sure, there are some who want to advertise that Maine is some mecca of great deer hunting but don’t be fooled by that ploy in misadvertising. STAY AWAY.



2013-2014 New York Deer Harvest Numbers: 243,567 but not enough


Blaming Numbers of Deer on Lyme Tick Increase is Dishonest

An online news article states that Vermont now leads the nation in reported cases of Lyme disease. The same report blames this on an “overabundant deer population.” The same report claims that the ideal deer per square mile, in order to “control” ticks, would be 20 per square mile. Other than a few isolated areas, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont don’t have that many deer.

We understand that deer are a source of a “last blood meal” for the ticks’ survival and perpetuation, it is not the only source. Surely, reducing actual “overabundance” of deer populations would contribute to the reduction in tick prevalence and thus Lyme disease infection rates, it appears as though, with information being given that shows low density deer populations in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, the deer is becoming a convenient scapegoat. Perhaps there are other agendas at work here.

If the intent is to reduce the prevalence of Lyme disease, how about providing some honesty in scientific research.