September 21, 2018

Unity College Commencement Address: We’re All Gonna Die! The Rest of the World Is Wrong

It is one thing that is terribly wrong when wildlife biology scientism is being propagandized at a college that specializes in Environmentalism propaganda. It’s yet another to address the graduating class with garbage about being on the “right side” of environmentalism and that we are all going to die because of Trump, Ryan Zinke, global warming, killing animals…and the list goes on and on.

Many wildlife biologists graduate from Unity College in Maine. Some stay in Maine to work and others go beyond. Either way, being brainwashed with Environmentalism before being sent out into the world as environmental change agents is what’s wrong with everything. They are all being mentally manipulated and controlled like environmental Jesuits.

Commencement speaker Jeff Corwin said things like: “Here’s the bad news: We have incredible challenges with our planet,” and “There is opportunity for your new speciality as an environmentalist capable of taking on the challenges of a 21st-century planet in serious peril,” also “Feeling this great honorary ribbon going around me, I thought, ‘Oh, that’s probably what it will feel like when the secretary of the interior puts a noose around my neck because he doesn’t like what I’m saying,” and finally, “I believe we are at a time that a lot of people are going to be on the wrong side of history — the wrong side of natural history. You want to be on the right side, and courage will make that happen in very difficult, polarizing times.”

This is part proof that Environmentalism has become like a militaristic entity of vigilantism. They craft their own form of scientism, brainwash the willing masses with it and send them into the world believing they own the high ground on everything environmental, urging them to get in the faces and boldly challenge anyone who opposes their religion.

There is little hope for the future of wildlife management.

And by the way, I haven’t said this in a while:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

IFW Opts to Manage Moose by Social Demands

I get it! No, I really do get it. People have been told, and they believe, that they “own” the natural resources in their state and therefore they have the right to demand that wildlife biologist base their decisions about wildlife management on the demands of that public. And the public should have a say in decisions about wildlife management…to a point.

If, as has been the case in Maine, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), for whatever reasons, has managed deer populations in many parts of the state at levels nearing or below sustainable levels, I will make my demands as much as the next guy. At the other end of the spectrum, if that same department manages deer populations at such high levels that disease is rampant, starvation persists and personal property is being damaged or destroyed, I also will have my demands.

And, yes, I will be transparent enough here to state that I want MDIFW to manage deer, moose, bear and all game animal species, at levels where hunting is an important tool in controlling numbers. This method has worked well for decades and when implemented correctly and responsibly is extremely valuable to a lot of people and wildlife.

However, I’m confused as to what is going on in one Wildlife Management District (WMD) in the Greenville region of the state. WMD 9 sits just east of Moosehead Lake. MDIFW had made its decision as to how many and of which species of permits would be issued as part of the Moose Lottery to be held in a few weeks in Bethel, Maine.

Residents of the Greenville area became incensed when they discovered that MDIFW planned to increase the number of permits for WMD 9. A public meeting was held in which residents spoke out against any plans to increase permits and, as a matter of fact, mostly demanded a reduction from the previous year’s numbers. Driving that opposition were claims that moose sightings were not prominent and it was hurting tourism business.

I’ve written in the past about MDIFW’s plans for moose management, mostly about how it may concern the presence of the winter ticks, but have not said that much about the social demands that drive wildlife management decisions concerning the moose in Maine.

In a John Holyoke article in the Bangor Daily News, John reports some things that perhaps more outdoor sportsmen should pay attention to.

First off, the article states that it was Commissioner Woodcock who caved in to the demands of the Moosehead Lake area residents.

Camuso said DIF&W Commissioner Chandler Woodcock took those public comments into consideration before deciding to return the number of moose permits in that district to 2014 levels — without additional cow permits.

Second, MDIFW, according to the BDN, had confidence in their data and that is what they based their decision to increase permits by.

Camuso said she was confident with the data that biologists have gathered, which was relied on to determine that increasing permits in that district was biologically feasible. But she said that biologists ultimately serve both the animals and the state’s residents, and the people of Greenville made their position quite clear.

“It’s important for people to remember that our jobs as biologists is to manage at a level that’s what the public wants,”

Here we have a clear indication that regardless of moose management plans, regardless of the data or the confidence that MDIFW says it might have in that data, MDIFW has decided to disregard that information in order to placate the demands of the public. One might ask why Maine bothers to conduct aerial surveys, do studies or even have paid biologists. That’s a lot of money for nothing.

It is my opinion that the statement made that it’s the job of a biologists to manage game species at levels demanded by the public, if unfortunate when the possibility exists that such social demands put the animals’ health at risk, if that be the case here. Earlier in the article it is stated that meeting public demands was PART of the equation. It shouldn’t be the driving force however.

But it gets worse. The article states that while MDIFW is preparing rewrites of their 15-year management plans for deer, moose and bear, MIDFW declares:

“Certainly one of the things we’ll be looking to do is to get input from a broad range of people and find out what level do they want, not just for moose but for deer, bear,” she said. “Obviously, we want to maintain healthy animals, but there’s what we call a biological carrying capacity, but we also want to make sure that we’re not exceeding the social carrying capacity, or underachieving the social desires.”

Huh? When MDIFW reviewed their moose data and stated they had confidence in that data when establishing proposals for the allotment of moose permits, was MDIFW attempting to increase moose numbers, decrease moose numbers or maintain the population they thought they had at present? Did they say? Not that I’m aware, but from past history if MDIFW increased permits from a previous year, they were at least attempting to maintain a current population target goal, to perhaps reducing the numbers.

I’ll have to go back and review the moose management plan, not that it gets followed anyway by anybody, but I believe the plan calls for attempting to keep the number of moose in ideal locations at about 80% of the biological carrying capacity. If MDIFW was using that as a guideline when, with the compliment of new data from aerial surveys, they made the proposal for the number and sex of permits to be issued, then lowering the permits might be putting the herd at risk of exceeding carrying capacity.

There needs to be some kind of balance here and in my opinion the balance should not be equally weighted between biological demands and social demands necessarily. There are so many other determining factors. Things on the ground are constantly changing. I understand the desire of businesses in the Greenville area wanting to take advantage of moose viewing and the tourism it might draw. I was quite involved in the tourism business in Maine and New Hampshire for several years. However, simply because people say they don’t see moose on their moose watching trips “like they used to” does that necessarily mean there needs to be more of them?

Most will concur that the ease of sighting a moose has diminished simply because the animal is now hunted and has been, legally, for about 30 years. The places where moose frequented – in large cuttings – are growing up and driving down wood roads in search of moose isn’t as easy a task as it once was. Hunting the creature is more difficult now for many of the same reasons. Were these and all other things considered before Commissioner Woodcock caved in to the demands?

Few will argue that the moose population has dropped over the last 5 years, but MDIFW has not made a definitive statement as to why, other than to guess it’s ticks and global warming. While I don’t consider Mr. Woodcock’s decision to reduce the number of moose permits for WMD 9 something detrimental to the moose herd, I do have to wonder if we should be spending tax dollars to gather data that will ultimately be trumped by social demands. I would like to see Commissioner Woodcock make a statement fully disclosing every factor he used in making his decision – and I hope it is based on more than simply people demanded it.

In addition, if representatives of MDIFW are going to publicly state that the biologists have confidence in the information they used to make recommendations for moose permit allotment, of what value, then, does it really have?

WMD9

Share

A Collection of Moose Parts Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Moose Expert

Found in the Stowe, Vt. Stow Today, we read: “If you want a walking Wikipedia of the moose, not to mention the threats that assail it, then Alexander is your man.

In his jam-packed office in St. Johnsbury, he has vials of moose ovaries and ticks in all life stages, boxes of jawbones and antlers, teeth and other items that he brings on show-and-tells. He has every chart imaginable, from a tally of the just-finished hunt this year — he’s counted 147 so far, about as predicted — to how many moose have been killed by hunters since seasons began in 1999: about 6,150.”

Does collecting parts and pieces make for the “best” expert on moose? Just because a person has the largest automobile junkyard in the state doesn’t make them an expert auto mechanic necessarily.

Here are some issues not being addressed honestly which renders this article without a great deal of credibility. The first claim is that Vermont’s moose is in trouble. Is it? Is the moose in trouble because the state cannot maintain enough moose to satisfy all those interested in having more moose? When fish and game departments became fish and wildlife departments and decided decisions on wildlife management would be based mostly on the social demands of the public, the moose population has shown signs of fluctuation. Because it’s in a downward trend in some places, it is easy to claim the moose is in trouble and find nonsense issues to blame it on.

This article blames the decline of moose in Vermont on three issues: Brainworm, Winter Tick and Climate Change (global warming). Global warming is really a non starter because facts show us that the “climate” hasn’t warmed for at least a decade and yet those who make money from repeating the lies about climate change, beat the drum of unsubstantiated conclusions and predictions about global warming. If we listened to the “experts” we would have all been dead by now. It’s time to move on. Most of the world is very sick and tired of the bovine excrement surrounding the idiocy of man-caused global warming.

On the same token, it’s easy to blame the presence of winter ticks on global warming. This is done, for political reasons only as it appears even the so-called experts don’t even understand the simple life-cycle of the winter tick.

Left out of the discussion of moose management is whether or not attempting to create a moose population large enough to make money from selling moose hunting licenses and satisfy the social demands of those interested in driving around in climate-controlled cars observing moose, is the best scientific approach to managing a healthy moose herd. I contend it probably is not.

A couple of short years ago Maine bragged that their moose population might exceed 90,000; like that was a good thing. Is Maine really capable of sustaining 90,000 moose? Evidently not, because all indications are that the moose has realized significant die-offs, mostly due to winter ticks. Don’t any of these biologists think that perhaps 90,000 moose are too many and due to that fact alone, contributed to and/or is 100% responsible for the overwhelming presence of winter ticks? This in turn, created that “balance” few in this world understand is how Mother Nature does things. Isn’t this Biology 101? Too many animals breeds disease. Disease causes die-offs. If all things remained the same, except the outbreak of winter ticks continued to kill moose, doesn’t it make sense that once the moose are substantially reduced, we will be witness to a die-off of winter ticks? Is so, moose numbers will return and if allowed to return to the same high numbers, the up and down, unstable cycle of population changes will persist.

What good are we doing our moose populations when we parrot the nonsense of global warming and blame everything on this fake occurrence? In addition, because real science has been tossed out the window, in exchange for Post-Normal, or Romance science, states with moose might be attempting to provide more moose than the complete carrying capacity will allow. After all, carrying capacity is more than just food and forests.

So long as these romance writers, writing about romance scientists, persists, we cannot expect any substantial, effective and long lasting, real knowledge to be gained that creates a positive environment for real wildlife management.

Share

Kentucky Biologist Honored for Work in Eastern Elk Restoration

MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation recently recognized Dr. Tina Brunjes for her leadership and long-standing commitment to Kentucky’s elk restoration efforts.

“Dr. Brunjes has been and remains a strong advocate for elk on their native range in the eastern part of the United States,” said Blake Henning, RMEF vice president of Lands and Conservation. “Not only was she very active and supportive of elk restoration in Kentucky, but she offered her expertise to other eastern states that also reestablished elk herds.”

Brunjes was the deer and elk program coordinator for the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources where she was responsible for all aspects of deer and elk management statewide. She worked there for eight and a half years.

Brunjes received the award at the 19th Annual Eastern Elk Management Workshop that took place April 27-30 in Breaks, Va.

“Just two decades ago, there were no elk in Kentucky but the estimated population of today’s herd is more than 10,000. That is a credit to a cooperative effort between Dr. Brunjes, Kentucky Fish and Wildlife and the RMEF,” added Henning.

To date, RMEF contributed $1.4 million to assist with Kentucky’s elk restoration program. The state held its first elk hunt in 150 years in 2001 and now boasts the largest wild elk herd east of the Rocky Mountains.

Kentucky provided elk as a source herd for successful reintroduction efforts in Missouri and Virginia. Elk from Kentucky also since crossed the border into West Virginia where a wild herd numbering approximately 60 now live.

Share

What Drives Maine’s Black Bears to Hibernate?

There have been some interesting discussions over the past couple of weeks or so about Maine’s black bear hunting season and the fact that hunters seems to be having good success and large bears are being taken. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) predicted a higher success rate for hunters this season and they attributed it to the lack of natural food. To go along with this claim, the same predictors said that bears would eat early, hibernate early and exit their dens early come spring.

If interested you can read the articles I wrote about this topic here and here.

It made little sense to me that black bears would show up in record-breaking sizes in a year when there was no natural food, as claimed by MDIFW scientists. I was also troubled by statements made that what drives bears into hibernation is lack of food. This prompted me to go on a multiple day search and rescue mission to see what I could see as it pertained to scientific studies, available to anyone with a computer (and a few extra dollars). What I discovered is that some of my suspicions were confirmed and some of what MDIFW scientists presented was confirmed.

The first major thing I discovered is that most all the studies on bears and black bears specifically, all deal with the physiological affects on bears when hibernating. Not surprisingly, it also appeared these studies were motivated by a desire to learn more so that one day humans can choose (or be forced) to hibernate.

The short of it is that little exists that specifically addresses why bears hibernate, i.e. is there something physiological that takes place or is it as MDIFW biologists state, that it’s all about the food supply? The answer is both.

In some studies, like this one on “The Comparative Anatomy of Eating“, I found statements not unlike several other studies not specific to the forces driving bears to hibernation:

Their diet is dominated by primarily succulent lent herbage, tubers and berries. Many scientists believe the reason bears hibernate is because their chief food (succulent vegetation) not available in the cold northern winters.

It appears as though what actually goes on with a bear in hibernation, if I can put this in words most people, including myself, will understand, is that a bear changes its metabolism. The effects are a myriad of things and the timing and degree to which such changes takes place seem to a product of diet and length and depth of hibernation, among other things.

In another study about how glucose responses by the bears with natural and manipulated amounts, still seem to be regulated by the bear:

Furthermore, the apparent increase in glucose utilization at the end of hibernation when fat stores are nearly exhausted suggests a continuum of metabolic activity from early to late hibernation with a transition to the active phase by the end of hibernation.

All very interesting but what drives the bear to head for the den? It was difficult, at best, to find anything definitive but I think the general consensus was that “something” triggers a black bear’s natural physiological response to increase fat supplies. During this time period, called the hyperphagic stage (transitioning from normal activity to hibernation), the bear naturally begins a gradual metabolic (if that be the correct term) change that will eventually lead them to their favorite winter hibernation local.

It also appears that the time in which a bear decides to actually head into the den can be influenced by whether or not there remains any food to eat. This is part of the equation but not all of it.

In a study titled, “Environmental Relationships and the Denning Period of Black Bears in Tennessee“, we get a glimpse at perhaps what that “something” is that begins to transition toward hibernation:

Den entry and strong fidelity to dens by all instrumented bears indicated that the intensity of dormancy did not differ from that in northern regions; however, duration of dormancy was considerably shorter. Cumulative effects of increased precipitation and lower maximum and higher minimum temperatures, which correspond to passage of a low pressure weather front, provided a proximate stimulus to enter dens. Food supply also appeared to affect denning in a proximal manner because bears denned earlier in years with fair to poor mast yields than in years with excellent mast yields.

The study further explains what determines the timing of denning:

Emergence dates were less strongly correlated with environmental factors. Ultimate synchronization of denning behavior with the environment is best explained by a circannual (endogenous) rhythm; this rhythm is easily shortened or lengthened allowing flexibility depending on environmental variation and the ecology of a species. Such a rhythm encompasses the observed variation in environmental factors affecting the denning period of bears over their broad geographic range and diverse ecological conditions.

It does appear that it’s not just food that determines when denning will occur but a myriad of environmental factors.

But why are Maine’s bears so fat when there’s a poor supply of natural food available? Generally speaking I am not convinced that they are. As the study suggests, it may be proximal, in that the reason we are seeing more bigger, fatter bears is because they got fat from eating bait put out by hunters and guides.

Maine allows baiting to begin approximately one month before opening of the hunting season. One MDIFW biologist told John Holyoke, at the Bangor Daily News, that one bear he was aware of gained 65 pounds in 16 days. If that’s true, then for 30 days of feasting at a bait station, one can imagine the amount of weight a hungry, greedy and dominating bear can put on.

So, are when then to conclude that what we are seeing at the tagging stations is not indicative to what the rest of the bear population, that is those without access to bait barrels, is like? The data being collected by biologists on the bears at tagging stations, is this good, usable and representative data of the general condition of all of Maine’s bears?

With the information I have gathered, some of which I have shared, I can concur that the timing of when black bears decide to go to sleep is partially driven by food supply. I do have concerns about whether big, fat bears is a real representation of the condition of the population in general.

Share