July 22, 2014

Nature Balancing Itself and Animal Rights Hypocrisy

An article that appears on the NBC12.com website, gives readers a glimpse into what most people believe to be “balance of nature” and proof they have no idea what their so-called “balance” looks like. In addition, the same article reveals the hypocrisy that drives animal rights and animal protection groups (actually anti hunting, control freaks).

What is being shown is an emaciated young black bear. The article states that this particular bear should have weighed about 100 pounds coming out of hibernation. Instead it tipped the scales at 15 pounds. The reason for the starvation was given as being the result of a lack of natural food last fall leading up to the time of hibernation when bears work hard at gorging themselves to build fat reserves.

This my friends is an example of “(un)balance of nature.” Most who believe this myth have been convinced or have convinced themselves that if man just dried up and went away, nature would always self-regulate and be in some kind of Disneyesque, fake balance that does not exist.

One has to ask which is more cruel/inhumane? To see young bears being starved to death “naturally,” or through population manipulation, employing hunting and trapping, to keep bear numbers at sustainable levels so that when those seasons come around when there is little natural food, this extreme kind of starvation is better avoided.

It won’t stop all situations but it could mitigate a very serious issue.

On the hypocrisy side of things, in the article we read, “It’s important not to feed bears if they come searching for food in your lawn. Call animal control, so the bears can be taken to a haven where they’re revived, and then released.”

The animal protectors, most of whom dislike hunters, say that using bait for hunting bears is cruel, unnatural and causes bear populations to grow too high for the carrying capacity of the forests. They also say feeding bears by baiting/feeding habituates them to humans and creates the nuisance problems we see on a regular basis.

Here we see hypocrisy at its finest. First we see that while many people claim “balance of nature” and that man should get out of the wildlife management business, we have man butting into wildlife management, creating a wildlife management business of their own, reviving starving bears (starving due to balance of nature?) and then sending them back into the forests again to starve and/or cause the starvation of other bears.

While the animal protectors claim that feeding/baiting bears teaches bears that humans are a food resource, it is somehow overlooked that “reviving” a starved bear cub and sending it back to the woods has not taught that bear to be dependent on humans for food?

In addition, the act of reviving a starved bear may, in fact, cause the starvation of another bear. The reason these dozen bears that have been found are starving is because of a “natural” phenomenon known as too many bears and not enough food. Sending a revived bear back to compete with other starving bears makes no sense at all.

They kinds of ignorant and hypocritical people love balance of nature, that is the kind they conjure up in their heads, when it nicely fits their narrative. And holding true to their totalitarian ways, rules they have insisted on having about feeding/baiting bears, apply to only those they dislike (hunters).

When I Hear That Lonesome Whistle……..Damn the Train!

“The GPS collaring project is part of the overall $1 million, five-year Parks Canada-Canadian Pacific Railway joint action plan to try to prevent ongoing deaths of grizzly bears on the train tracks through Banff and Yoho national parks.Trains are the single biggest killer of grizzly bears in Banff National Park. There have been 14 known grizzly bear deaths on the railway in Banff and Yoho since 2000, but that number does not take into account bears that may be struck but never found.”<<<Read More>>>

With Manly Men Degradation, So Goes Hunting, Trapping, Fishing

People could spend a great deal of time discussing whether or not the feminizing of men in this country, and probably worldwide, is a deliberate scheme planned by “the rulers of the darkness of this world.” The reality, however, is a disturbing trend for those of us who desire to fight against those “progressing” to a new world order of unisexism, i.e. adding a bit of manliness to the female species with major modifications to the manly man into a big fat wuss!

For many, hunting, fishing, trapping, survival in the woods and enduring the elements, is a manly occupation and recreational interest, in addition to the implementation of resources to provide healthy food for the family. Ah, yes, manly endeavors! The “rulers of the darkness of this world” see such a lifestyle as a threat to them and their perverse world and therefore must work to change it.

With this changing, the task of putting an end to such things as hunting, trapping, fishing, access to land, etc. becomes easier; therefore adding to the substantiation of the idea that the wussification of man is a planned event.

If you might recall, back in December I posted a video of an advertisement the Obama administration either used or was considering using to promote their fascist Obamacare. By today’s standards, many would think of the sick and perverse ad as being beefcake and manly, but it is quite the opposite. The point being that the target audience, in which the media willingly beats the drum, is the young people, as it is their money that is needed to fund Obamacare. The audience is, by and large, effeminate, and thus the need for such a commercial.

Along the same lines, Pajama Boy, has become the poster child for Obamacare and an example of the kind of “man” this new generation of entitlement mentality has created.

Richard “Wretchard” Fernandez says of Pajama Boy:

It is now unfashionable to be the old manly man. When the Obama administration launched a campaign to attract enrollees into Obamacare, did they they front up a two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping he-man? Hell no. They employed “Pajama Boy” to lure the mice into the trap. This is who they reckoned the rising generation would admire. The heck with aspiring to be a test pilot or an astronaut. What people want today is the “funemployment” guy; the thing who drinks hot chocolate in his parents’ basement preparatory to selling them on subsidized, crap insurance. Pajama Boy is the new beau ideal. Why would the PR men have used his visage to grace their ads if women preferred “manly men”?

You can make the half-serious argument that in order to be a winner in today’s world it pays to be a loser. After all, you get subsidies. You get sympathy. You can play the victim card. Above all, you get the girl.

Isn’t everything, at least that is real, about hunting, fishing, trapping, of the “two-fisted, hard-drinking, cigar-chomping, he-man?” If then, the men (I use the term very loosely) are becoming sissified, aren’t they then having everything manly bred, manipulated and indoctrinated out their existence?

With the constant barrage of animal rights, natural regulation, the hands-off approach to wildlife management and the lie that hunting, trapping and fishing are “inhumane”, then it would stand to reason that those activists wanting to rid the world of manly men, including the barbarism (in their eyes) of hunting, fishing and trapping, will target the Pajama Boy population of feminized boys.

In 2004, Maine fought against the less mature onset of this feminism movement to ban bear hunting and squeaked out a victory. Will they be able to this time? I can say that the effort will be harder to ward off. I’m not predicting the outcome.

Fernandez says:

But the insight of mutual degradation may provide the right clue. We probably seek people in proportion to our own aspirations. Our romantic goals are formed from our inner state. If we develop a taste for basements, then we look for stuff there. Civilization has lost its taste for manly men, not because those vanished figures are any less admirable but because steadfastness, courage and the need to be true have gone out of style.

It will be November before we find out what’s in the basements of Maine houses.


Want to Count Bobcats?

New Hampshire is looking for volunteers with trail/game cameras to help count bobcats. What amazes me is that money is spent in large quantities to count bats, turtles, piping plovers, butterflies and loons. Not one red cent is spent in Maine and other states to count game animals that bring in millions and millions of dollars to each of those states.

What is additionally disgusting is that when it comes to counting bats, turtles, butterflies and loons and now bobcats, volunteers are wanted. But when the real conservationists, i.e. the hunters, tell the wildlife authorities about the number of game animals in existence, the general response from those officials is that they don’t want to hear such talk from non experts.

Would somebody mind telling me why the double standard? I have donated hundreds, I’m sure thousands by now, dollars in order that I can have a chance to harvest game, and that money is often being spent to count butterflies, etc. In the meantime, guessing how many deer there are seems to be good enough….even though in states like Maine, the herd condition is dismal and the state appears to be mounting a program to convince people the herd has recovered.

Thank God for global warming.

Why Social Influence Should Never Effect Wildlife Management

horsepoop290It’s like the movie Ground Hogs Day. It’s repeated over and over. Every fish and wildlife agency in this country now adjusts their wildlife management plans according to the pressures and influences of the mindless, incapable of thinking beyond television, public: That is those more willing to care for animals than humans.

So why shouldn’t wildlife be managed due to public influences? Perhaps this bit of wisdom will help explain. In a Letter to the Editor in the Portland Press Herald out of Maine(scroll to find), a writer attempts to paint a picture of those proponents of bear hunting and trapping as somehow not understanding their own positions.

At issue here is that anti rights, anti hunting, anti trapping, anti (you fill in the blank), out-of-state, totalitarian fascists want to control what the citizens of the State of Maine do. They are attempting, once again, to end bear hunting and trapping. One of the arguments being used by, not only hunters, trappers and citizens at large who do understand the necessity of science-based wildlife management, but also by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is that ending any means to be able to control the population of black bears in Maine, will result in a public safety issue of too many human/bear conflicts.

Should the writer have had enough brain matter(I use the term loosely. Please see fable below), he would have been able to see the ignorance of his own statement when he said:

They say that too many conflicts with humans make these practices[bear hunting/trapping] essential to controlling the bear population.

But they also claim that that they need to use these techniques because bears are too difficult to find and shoot otherwise.

Which is it – too many bears or too few?

If you don’t know anything about hunting bears, then my recommendation would be to continue reading here the fable of the bird who refused to fly south for the winter.

A bird found a wonderful place to build a nest; right behind the wind-protected and warm chimney on top of a house. There were bird feeders around and such and so the bird decided not to fly south with the rest of the birds as winter approached.

The bird didn’t realize that when the leaves fell, the people that provided the bird feeders and warmed the chimney, closed up their house and went south as well.

The bird got cold and could find no food to eat.

One day, as the bird sat in his nest believing his life was going to end, he heard and saw a neighbor come by the house riding on a horse. He was there to check on the house for his neighbors. As the man looked around, the horse deposited a big pile of excrement right near the side of the house.

After the man and horse left, the bird crawled out of his nest and worked his way down to the eave of the roof; unable to fly he was so weak from starvation. Struggling, the bird eventually fell off the eave of the house and landed in the pile of horse excrement.

The excrement had warmth and nutrition. Soon the bird recovered his strength and flew back up to his nest. Still ignorant of the ways of the world when winter sets in, the bird was so happy he was going to live for another day, he began to sing and sing loudly. Soon a hawk heard the bird, swooped down and ate the bird.

The moral of the story is: When you are full of shit, keep your mouth shut.

And I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating The intelligence of the American public.”

*Note* – There may be some of you who will require additional help in understanding what has been written here. Seeking understanding from me is no longer free. My consultation fees begin at $100. I can take PayPal.

Idealism: Keep Politicians Out of Wildlife Policy Decisions

politicssuckNot only is it idealism, it’s fools play to actually think that anyone can keep politicians out of wildlife policy decisions. This is not going to happen and never has. It’s also one of the reasons politics AND environmentalism are so deeply rooted into wildlife policy decisions. It may be a problem that there exists too many outdoor enthusiasts who think just as Craig Dougherty, at Outdoor Life, in an opinion piece, when he expresses that:

I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the last person I want making wildlife policy is a politician. This is especially true when it comes to making major decisions on how wildlife and the future of hunting should be managed.

Well, dang! Get in line Bubba! There’s nothing I would like any more than to tell politicians to get to hell out of wildlife management and my life as a whole. As a matter of fact, those readers who know my work understand that I would like to see politicians just get to hell out…..period!

But this is idealistic poppycock. It is also one of many reasons I began writing back over a decade ago about hunting, fishing, trapping, the outdoors in general and how politics and politicians were screwing it all up. Sticking one’s head in the sand stating they are not going to contact their representative because they don’t want them involved in wildlife politics will accomplish nothing. For those who vote, try voting for somebody who believes as you do.

I despise politics in wildlife management! I’m partial to the North American Wildlife Management Model and managing game animals for surplus harvest. When politics control wildlife policy decisions, these two policies get flushed down the toilet. And we, as the real conservationists, the outdoor sportsman, are supposed to bang our heads on the floor and refuse to play anymore?

I think someone needs a time out.

But this opinion writer is not alone and it’s a shame really. The other day I was visiting a message board that I check into from time to time to see what’s going on in the trapping world. What appeared to me to be a young person, posted a question about a particular species’ trapping season but qualified his/her question by first stating that he/she didn’t want anybody offering an answer that had anything to do with politics. Isn’t that like me telling you to go to Washington and find an honest person?

This, in and of itself, I found troubling but it got even worse. It took a while for the conversation to get rolling there but eventually this young person revealed that they planned to be a “fur bearer biologist” and that he/she didn’t like politics, etc. etc. Boy, is this person in for a rude awakening.

Money, greed and politics are all mightily engrained into our lifestyle in America. I contend that, for many, perhaps like Mr. Dougherty, it’s much easier to escape to the fields and streams and wish it would all go away. But it will not and if more and more people like Dougherty and this young, aspiring fur-bearer biologist, don’t recognize reality and/or are not willing to address it, what hope is there left that there will be anything left to hunt, fish, trap, etc.?

Dougherty says that he would support an “agency” person within fish and wildlife over a politician.

…when it comes to actually writing the regulations and setting deer policy, I’ll take the agency guy over a politician every time.

I understand the attempt at somehow separating writing wildlife policy from the politicians but for the most part isn’t the entire structure of a fish and game department political? Someone has to hire the biologists, the wardens, the commissioner, etc. Don’t be so naive to think that politics aren’t involved at the initial hiring. Some would argue that state regulations protect those hired so the next political hack that arrives at the door can’t fire them for political reasons. That doesn’t change the fact that politics played a role from the initial hiring and always will. All that has changed is the party in power.

Perhaps instead of choosing the role of running away, someone with this kind of frustration should become more involved. Get involved in finding ways to structure fish and game department guidelines to ensure that politicians and their filth and grime cannot and does not micro manage the department. But don’t forget that there will come a time when you will need the power of being able to run to your favorite politician and beg for help. It always happens. Don’t weave your own noose!

77% Support Legal Hunting as Means to Control Wildlife Populations

In a recent Responsive Management Report newsletter, among an array of attitudes and people’s perspectives on dealing with nuisance wildlife, is a statistic showing that 77% of the 3,962 survey respondents in 13 northeast states, support legal and regulated hunting as a viable means of controlling wildlife populations.

Nuisance Newsletter

The 13 states include: Connecticut (307), Delaware (302), Maine (300), Maryland (300), Massachusetts (303), New Hampshire (308), New Jersey (302), New York (311), Pennsylvania (302), Rhode Island (305), Vermont (320), Virginia (301), and West Virginia (301). The number in parentheses are the number of participants of the survey in that state.

The survey includes attitudes of people about nuisance wildlife, species involved, what the nuisance was, who should deal with these nuisance issues, including how this should be funded.

A full report can be found here.

Further Evidence of Environmentalist Wanting It Both Ways

*Editor’s Note* – Below is a copy of a press release, I am told, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), about information obtained through FOIA. Also, at the end of the press release is a link to the FOIA-obtained information available to read should you choose.

What angers me most about this utter nonsense by the CBD is their attempt at always having their bread buttered on both sides. The real conservationists of this country, the hunters, have for many years now been trying to get state fish and game departments, as well as federal wildlife agencies, to manage wildlife based on science and not on social demands and political pressure. I dare say that one of the major reasons that these agencies now operate in the manner that it does is because of efforts from environmental groups like CBD.

In this case, CBD is whining and complaining because they feel that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in their proposal to delist wolves in all the 48 lower states, made their decision based on, “‘what can the public tolerate’ and ‘where should wolves exist’ rather than where suitable habitat for wolves exists or what is scientifically necessary for recovery.”

While the CBD whines and complains, demanding the USFWS and other state wildlife departments use the CBD’s best available propagandized and fabricated science, they and other environmental and animal rights groups continue their efforts to infiltrate all of these same agencies in order to manipulate them into making wildlife management decisions based on “what the public can tolerate” and “where wolves should exist” instead of actual best available science.

You see, groups like the CBD demand agencies like USFWS to accept CBD’s “science” in their decision making processes when it is expedient and in the best interest of CBD and at the same time demand USFWS and other wildlife management agencies to accept CBD’s philosophies of managing wildlife based on social demands and all other political and non scientific agendas, when it is expedient and in the best interest of CBD.

When agencies such as CBD show such two-faced, hypocritical, unprofessional and unscientific nonsense, how can anyone take what they have to say in any serious way. They are nothing more than an activist, fundraising, fringe group wanting to have everything both ways.

For Immediate Release, June 27, 2013

Contact: Brett Hartl, (202) 817-8121

Documents Reveal State Officials, Not Scientists, Led Decision to Strip Endangered Species
Protections From Wolves Across Country

Endangered Species Act’s Science-based Mandate Sidestepped for Political Expediency

WASHINGTON— Documents obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show last month’s proposal to remove most federal protections for gray wolves was preordained three years ago in a series of meetings with state wildlife agencies.

Under the Endangered Species Act, decisions to list and delist species must be made solely on the basis of the best available science. In this case the newly obtained documents suggest the Service pushed ahead to delist wolves without scientific support in order to obtain a political outcome desired by state fish and game agencies.

Specifically, the documents show that the Fish and Wildlife Service constrained the possible geographic scope of wolf recovery based on perceptions of “what can the public tolerate” and “where should wolves exist” rather than where suitable habitat for wolves exists or what is scientifically necessary for recovery. The meetings left state agencies in a position to dictate the fate of gray wolves across most of the lower 48 states.

“This process made a mockery of the spirit of the Endangered Species Act. These documents show that years ago the Fish and Wildlife Service effectively handed over the reins on wolf recovery to state fish and game agencies, many of which are openly hostile to wolves,” said Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “In order to ensure this politically contrived outcome, the Fish and Wildlife Service has spent the past three years cherry-picking scientific research that justifies the predetermined outcome that wolves don’t need protection anymore.”

In August 2010 officials from a select group of state fish and game agencies were invited to a week-long workshop at the Fish and Wildlife training center in West Virginia to effectively decide the future of gray wolf recovery in the United States. The decisions made at the meeting were largely adopted in the agency’s June 2013 proposal to end federal protections for gray wolves across most of the lower 48.

As part of this process, the Fish and Wildlife Service also excluded any consideration of further protection for wolves in Colorado and Utah for either gray wolves coming from the north or Mexican wolves coming from the south. This was based solely on the opposition of the two states’ wildlife agencies and despite extensive wolf habitat in the two states. The documents also show that Fish and Wildlife promised that the input of state wildlife agencies “with a cooperative management role” would be given greater weight in any future decision-making and that it would develop a wolf delisting rule to “implement [the] understanding” reached at the 2010 meeting.

“The Fish and Wildlife Service’s actions demonstrate a near total lack of transparency and scientific integrity,” said Hartl. “If the Service had followed this same logic 20 years ago, there would be no wolves in Yellowstone National Park today — and no wolves roaming across the northern Rocky Mountains. The Service needs to go back to the drawing board and let the scientific facts guide how to recover wolves across the millions of acres of suitable wolf habitat remaining in the western United States and the Northeast.”

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

Wolf FOIA Documents

David Mech’s Damage Has Been Done – Too Late to Attempt Reconciliation

It seems some readers are agog today over an article discovered to have been published at Daily Kos, discussing supposed errors made in attempts to understand wolf and wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. At the center of this article is David Mech, father of the Wolf Wars; the man who identifies with wolf studies and the introduction or reintroduction, depending on one’s perspective, of wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

It’s always vengeful bliss to say, “I told you so,” but it’s just as important to understand that Mech’s seeming admission that some things might not have been right, is really no victory for anyone accept David Mech and the environmental hijackers; those destroyers of people’s rights, property destruction and confiscation, and the subjection of citizens to reduced levels of public health and safety.

On examination of certain statements made by Mech, on the surface I can see him saying the things that I have been writing about for several years on the myths of balance of nature and self regulation of the ecosystems.

…..at the very least, scientists now disagree about whether wolf related behaviorally mediated trophic cascades in Yellowstone are really occurring………. At most, that well-publicized claim may not be correct at all.

…..ecologists (and particularly conservation biologists) do seem obsessed to the point of blindness with predator-induced trophic cascades.

Two decades later after observing wolves and moose and whitetail in Minnesota, Mech denounced the “balance of nature” writing in (National Wildlife 23(1):54-59) he said nature “far from always being ‘balanced,’ ratios of wolves and prey animals can fluctuate wildly – and sometimes catastrophically”.

Consider, if you will, what Mech said and the comment made by the author of this piece.

In an interview Mech states that scientific conclusions may “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way,”. Because the meme of a trophic cascade in Yellowstone is so embedded in textbooks and popular media, it may never die, even if untrue.(Emboldening added)

It has taken how many decades of wolf study, combined with the numerous “scientific” papers written and distributed by Mech, perhaps walking around with a very large chip on his shoulder, swelling in his pride as being perceived as the wolf expert, approaching godliness in some people’s eyes, to decide to consult other scientists about wolves, or in general, balance of nature and trophic cascades?

It may appear that Mech has reached some scientific epiphany or maybe even remorse, complete with crocodile tears, so why should we be so thrilled at his comments about the dishonesty and corruption of money-starved, agenda-driven scientists who, “vary from outright dishonesty to not even knowing your bias is getting in the way?”

I would have to agree with the author of the article who states that this meme, that is the false idea that has spread throughout the scientific community full of wolf loving, money hungry faux scientists, may never die, is, in fact, the outcome that Mech intended from the beginning.

It’s a bit easier to put up a front indicating wrongdoing when the damage has been done and you’ve achieved the goals intended. Are we then to forgive and forget? I think not. The actions of Mech and many others, those being the products of his own work, i.e. his following, his own “outright dishonesty” and what I believe to be him knowing his own bias, have caused such extreme damage, to not only the scientific community but the loss of other wildlife, the spread of disease and the destruction caused to humanity through his deceitful work to cause division and strife among the people. How does one measure that value and establish accountability? Should we just dismiss it because this man is sticking his big toe in contriteness?

The damage has been done and it probably never will get corrected. The lessons learned here will also not be all good. One would like to think that the scientific community would take a deep breath and reassess this evil approach toward political ends shrouded in spurious science, but unfortunately it will stand as a proving ground in how to make money while lying and cheating the American public, regardless of the potential of damage that can be done. After all, the love of money is the root of all evil.

The U.S. Government, specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, should never have given one man so much power and authority to carry out his work. To do wrong, the result of work going unchecked and unchallenged, some because Mech had the power to disregard information from others, for over 2 decades and THEN step forward indicating that things may have been wrong, isn’t something the American citizens should be so easily willing to accept. There is far more to Mech’s and other’s behavior over the years that goes a bit beyond “oops” and can rightly be described as a criminal enterprise.

As Christians we are taught to forgive, but that doesn’t mean we need forget. We must correct the wrong and seek rightful justice for the actions that go beyond scientific error. The American people will never get back into the scientific literature the truth about wildlife science, balance of nature and trophic cascades. It is my opinion that this “damage” was intentionally planned. It is also my opinion that as David Mech ages, he’s now, without much fear of punitive actions against him, willing to say what he may deem appropriate to save his own skin and play to the side of science and citizens who believed him wrong and corrupt from the beginning. We shouldn’t fall for it.

We should take his words and attach those words to the years of his work and then the task at hand for the activists is to begin a long and difficult task of reeducation. How do you counter the brainwashing being done by the most powerful?

Mount Desert Island Has Too Many Deer and Too Many Ill-Informed People

The residents of Maine’s Mount Desert Island lament the familiar cries of many across this land – too many deer causing too much disease, causing too many accidents, eating too many plants and veggies, etc. And not only does Mount Desert Island face all the same problems of trying to figure out what to do about it, they also face having the majority of the land mass of the island taken up by a National Park.

According to an article by Bill Trotter in the Bangor Daily News, he is correct in passing on what Len Bobinchock, deputy superintendent of Acadia National Park said about people refusing to allow hunting on their land and yet complain about the deer issue.

because individual property owners can determine whether to allow hunting on their land (if there’s not a state-imposed ban), MDI residents should be asked not just if they support a hunt, but also if they would allow hunting on their property. If residents in each town say a hunt should be allowed, but if few people would allow hunters on their land, having a hunt might not be practical, he said.

However, Bobinchock is very wrong when he says that it would take an act of Congress (literally) to get a hunt for Arcadia National Park.

Stu Marckoon, a town official of many titles in Lamoine, asked Bobinchock what it would take to get the federal government to allow a hunt in the park, but was told such a scenario is not likely.

“Congress,” the deputy superintendent said. “You’d have to introduce special legislation.”

We’ve been down this road a hundred times before but I’ll write it again. There is no mythical ban against hunting in a national park and special legislation is not required. Hunts have taken place in other national parks across the country and hunts are being discussed as well currently. Rocky Mountain National Park comes to mind as it is believed there are too many elk and anything from reintroducing wolves, to closing the park for a general elk hunt, to paying sharpshooters to kill elk have been discussed.

Having a hunt or deciding what to do about too many deer on MDI is up to the park superintendent. If the superintendent wanted to have a hunt, whether by closing the park or hiring sharpshooters, he or she has that authority. It’s just the same old rhetoric coming from the same people who just are opposed to wildlife management that involves population controls.

It’s always good to push opportunities for hunters but often times the problem of too many deer presents serious public health and safety issues. I advise the towns of Mount Desert Island, along with the superintendent of the national park, to get the facts FIRST, and then decide collectively what needs to be done.