May 24, 2019

The Right Hand is Blind to the Left Hand – With an Attitude to Boot

Have you often wondered why the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) even exists and functions at all? I have. But let me be honest. The job is a huge one and MDIFW does many things well. Others? Not so good. I think public relations and communications needs some improvement. What do you think?

In a story and video published at WAGM, Channel 8, Presque Isle, Maine, an MDIFW biologist states: “This [mild winter] is tremendous, not only for deer but all wild life. We know the weather regime is quite rigorous. And winter is a tremendous limiting factor in survivor-ship for all wild life. I guess it boils down to, I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Happy days are here again… and blue skies, nothing but blue skies will I see.

But hang on a minute. Not quite so fast with the jubilation of instant deer management.

WABI TV’s website has another video about the mild winter weather in Maine.

Another MDIFW biologist told the Bangor, Maine television audience that: “Severe weather in any direction is going to have some mild impact on all critters, but people like to make a big deal out of nothing.”

And so, there you have it. You decide if MDIFW needs a bit of help with getting their excuses stories straight.

The mild weather, according to one biologist, is the answer to all things wildlife – all wild life is prosperous. Shhh! Don’t say a word about how that mild winter weather grows winter ticks and slaughters moose by the dozens or more. All wild life benefits.

Because people “like to make a big deal out of nothing,” we should stop being concerned for whether or not Maine’s deer, bear, moose, grouse, turkeys and yes, even, piping plovers are effected by “climate change.” MDIFW seems to have taken on that attitude…or at least some. It must be about keeping the stockholders happy to increase profits.

But you know what pisses me off the most about all of this? I really don’t care that much that MDIFW sends out contradictory information all on the same day, because I know the truth. What angers me most is that last comment shown above: “…but people like to make a big deal out of nothing.” Doesn’t that just stink to high heavens of an elitist biologist, the same ones that never listen to what the sportsmen who actually spend time afield have to say because I’M A BIOLOJEST and I know it all. Maybe if these people changed their attitudes about us low-life commoners, who, by the way, pay their salaries and retirement benefits, are nothing more than an inconvenience, people like me wouldn’t have to keep reminding them that their attitudes suck.

With a $50 million budget, plus lots more money to spend, isn’t it time for that department to have a common public relations person and press secretary where all communications come from?

Share

SAM-Sponsored Bill to Limit Restrictions on IFW to be Heard Tuesday

This SAM bill will be heard this Tuesday in the IF&W committee in the Cross State Office building next to the capitol. This bill will protect IF&W biologists, sportsmen and the department if the Humane Society of the United States ever qualifies another referendum ballot initiative related to wildlife management. At the hearing I will lay out the realities and truth about what can happen when we can’t effectively manage wildlife.

Photo: The attached photo is of a mailer used by the HSUS during the Maine campaign in 2014. The bears in the photo are Grizzlies. Maine has never had Grizzlies!!

1:00 PM Room 206 PUBLIC HEARING L.D. 1593 An Act To Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

An Act To Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §§10111 and 10112 are enacted to read:
§ 10111. Contingency wildlife management provisions
When a ballot measure for a direct initiative of legislation as described in Title 21-A, chapter 11 is approved that reduces or alters wildlife management methods or management options available to the department, the commissioner shall implement the provisions of this section in relation to any fish or wildlife species significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved measure. For purposes of this section, “animal” means a fish or wildlife species that is significantly affected directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure.

1. Expenditures prohibited. The commissioner may not expend any revenues on the animal damage control pursuant to section 10053, subsection 8 or any other nuisance animal control activities in excess of the amount expended in the fiscal year prior to the effective date of the ballot measure for a direct initiative of legislation as described in Title 21-A, chapter 11, adjusted annually for inflation.

2. Sterilization program. The commissioner may not establish or implement a sterilization program to control the population of an animal.

3. Waste. The department may not dispose of any animal in a manner that constitutes waste under section 11224 and may not dispose of on state-owned land any animal killed by the department.

4. Landowner depredation program. The commissioner shall develop a landowner depredation program that allows a landowner or landowner’s agent to take an animal for purposes of depredation on that landowner’s property. The program must include, but is not limited to, the following.

A. Except as provided in paragraph B, a landowner or landowner’s agent may not retain, in whole or in part, more than 2 animals of the same species at any one time.

B. If a landowner or landowner’s agent exceeds the limit established in paragraph A, the landowner or the landowner’s agent must donate any animal in excess to the Hunters for the Hungry program under section 10108 or, if the animal is not suitable for donation under the program, the department shall assist the landowner in the proper disposal of the animal but may not authorize the landowner to retain the animal or any part of the animal beyond the limit established in paragraph A.

The commissioner shall report annually to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters on the landowner depredation program, including, but not limited to, the number of animals killed pursuant to this subsection.
The commissioner shall adopt rules to implement this section. Rules adopted pursuant to this section are major substantive rules as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A.
§ 10112. Ballot measure; impact analysis
Within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition for a direct initiative of legislation as described in Title 21-A, chapter 11 that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the measure to the Legislature, the commissioner shall conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report the commissioner’s analysis to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters. The analysis must include, but is not limited to, a biological and ecological impact assessment, the economic impact to the department and how the department will need to adjust its management practices to maintain a healthy wildlife population.

SUMMARY
This bill establishes contingent wildlife management provisions that become effective when a ballot measure for a direct initiative of legislation is approved that reduces wildlife management methods available to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The provisions of this bill apply only to the animals that are significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure. The bill does the following.
1. It places a cap on the revenue the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife may expend to control animals causing damage or any other nuisance animals to the level spent in the fiscal year prior to the effective date of the direct initiative of legislation.
2. It prohibits the commissioner from establishing or implementing a sterilization program to control the population of an animal.
3. It provides that the department may not dispose of an animal in a manner that would constitute waste under existing statute and prohibits the department from disposing of on state-owned land an animal killed by the department.
4. It requires the commissioner to develop a landowner depredation program that sets a limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner and requires a landowner to donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established by the commissioner to the Hunters for the Hungry program.
5. It also provides that within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to the Legislature, the commissioner must conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report the commissioner’s analysis to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters.
6. It requires the commissioner to report on the landowner depredation program annually to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters.

BaitingStinks

Share

How Accurate Are State Deer Harvest Estimates?

According to an article found at Outdoor Life“Hunters want it [deer harvest estimate] to be important, but they also don’t believe it. They say how can you know how many deer were killed if you didn’t check my deer? And that’s true. These estimates aren’t down to the individual deer, but scientifically this is an accurate and proven way to estimate deer harvest. Trends, though, are most important.”

It is my opinion that what hunters are interested in, at least initially, is a report from state wildlife officials as to the deer harvest, whether estimated or as accurate as it can be, in order to observe the trend taking place, and they don’t want to have to wait several months for that basic information. For those, like me, more interested in the actual harvest data, I understand having to wait a reasonable amount of time to get that data. For an “estimate” such guesses should be available within a few days of season closure.

But what of the science of deer management? If all wildlife officials are interested in is survey trends, I’m not so sure that I can have a lot of faith that the management plan is being laid out properly if the agency doesn’t know the population at any given point. There need be some kind of checks and balances in order to have confidence the modeling is working. Modeling has a poor track record. It would seem that using only trends would result in discovery too late in order to make adjustments.

Either way, the idea of the harvest estimates immediately concluding the deer hunting – or bear or moose, etc. – is for the hunters. It’s information they would like to have. It’s a way to inform them as to whether they are getting the best bang for their buck – pun intended.

HarvestEstimates

Share

Philosophical Shift in the Way the State Views Wildlife

As if it is needed, we have further proof that we are overcome by a Totalitarian Scientific Dictatorship.

In an article I read recently (linked to below) it appears the author voiced some concern over the most recent resignation of wildlife Commissioner Jim Kellogg in California. With his “retirement” and previous resignation of other members of the commission, the author suggested this act, “could put the finishing touches on a sweeping philosophical shift in the way the state views wildlife.” (emboldening added)

Scientism rules. It is part of the Totalitarian Scientific Dictatorship. To understand this, one has first to understand Scientism. Def – “Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most “authoritative” worldview or the most valuable part of human learning – to the exclusion of other viewpoints.” This can be more easily defined as the hijacking of the real scientific method, changing its meaning (paradigm) and creating what scientismists like to call, new knowledge, for the purpose of fulfilling selfish and perverted romantic idealism. This becomes nicely wrapped up in totalitarianism with, “the exclusion of other viewpoints.” I might remind readers that this “exclusion” eventually results in prosecution, imprisonment and death.

For those who have been following along, this should not come as news. While the author of the linked-to article expresses some “concern,” what is taking place there is a planned event. It was determined long ago to infiltrate every conceivable level of wildlife management for the sole purpose to destroy the wildlife management model and create a, “sweeping philosophical shift” in every fish and wildlife agency and outdoor organization in America and in actuality, the world. Open your eyes. It’s everywhere and is not confined to wildlife management. The infiltration is predominant at every level of our lives.

I brought up this subject in my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” I wrote, “So, why then is it some are crying out for a new understanding about animals? And what is the purpose of seeking a paradigm shift? What’s to understand that is somehow now new? If after centuries we have failed to grasp solid “understanding” of animals and the roles they play in our lives, what hope do we have in our future? Is a “new understanding” going to seriously change what becomes of the animals themselves? Probably not in the way some think it will, but I can assure you a “new understanding and paradigm shift” will certainly change the behavior of humans.”

And that is the whole point! It isn’t about wildlife, animals, flora and fauna. It’s about changing the behavior of humans.

The actions in California are far beyond concern. What we are seeing is the result of careful and systematic planning. Once scientismists, with their perverted ideals, have finished the takeover of wildlife management, there will be nothing left for the hunters, fishermen, trappers, hikers, bikers, tenters, campers, and so on. Don’t think so? Many who advocate for a “sweeping philosophical shift” are hikers, bikers, tenters, and campers and don’t think that the scientismist worshipers have them in their cross-hairs. Better think deep and hard and open your eyes.

“The sudden resignation of the most adamant defender of hunting and fishing on the California Fish and Game Commission could put the finishing touches on a sweeping philosophical shift in the way the state views wildlife, sets rules for fishing and controls predators like mountain lions and wolves.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

If We Evolved From Monkeys, Why Are Some Dumber Than a Monkey?

Everyone has a right to an opinion. With that opinion there is no guarantee that it will even be intelligent. Such is the case of a full-blown moron who writes about what he believes is the Myth of Hunting Conservation. It really doesn’t get any more stupid than the utter nonsense written. The Bangor Daily News, considering that this article is published on one of their own blog sites, should consider publishing a disclaimer that they are not responsible for contributing writers being so ignorant of subjects they choose to write about.

MonkeySayingItAll

Share

Tallies from hunting show that deer, bear and turkeys are doing well in N.H. – moose, not so much

…although it may seem counterintuitive, hunting seasons are one of the best ways to determine the size and health of wild animal populations. A popular hunting season can send thousands – tens of thousands in the case of deer season – into the woods looking for specific species.

Because hunters must register their kills for major game animals such as deer, bear, turkey and moose at stations, their season provides data about age, weight and general health of individuals and sex ratios of populations. For example, samples taken at deer check-stations let biologists know that chronic wasting disease, often called the deer version of mad cow disease, has not shown up in New Hampshire.

Source: Tallies from hunting show that deer, bear and turkeys are doing well in N.H. – moose, not so much | Concord Monitor

ObamaMooseHunting

Share

“Big Changes” Probably Means Things Will Get Worse

DelphiTechniqueI was caught by a headline today that read, “Big changes coming for Maine’s big game plans.” If that is true then logically one must ask why is there a need for changes at all saying nothing about those changes being big?

The article states that deer, bear, moose and turkey will fall under management of a “single plan”, whatever that means, and the new “plan” will be “major” because the public is going to be sought after in “a new aggressive effort.” What possibly could go wrong?

If you must know, once again the Maine Government is attempting to “fix” something by creating, yet another, “steering committee” made up of “stake holders.” Stake holders generally means those connected insiders, many of whom have sat on previous committees to “fix” things, instrumental in creating new knowledge, shifting paradigms, ie. change agents who are brainwashed into believing that if real issues are disregarded, mostly because they are not liked for various reasons, and that if discussions become something different, whether relevant or not and always loaded down with political agendas, somehow those perceived “problems”, mostly political and financial, will go away.

What we are seeing here is the planned result of efforts to remove actual science from the wildlife management process that began many years ago and replacing it with political and social efforts of those trained, directly or indirectly, in the application of the Delphi Technique, in which the public is brought into discussions thinking they have an actual say in the process while the change-agent, Delphi technicians, manipulate and control the outcome. Those unfamiliar with the process are none the wiser.

The author writes, whether his own words or those of the steering committee, that there were “Lessons Learned.” I don’t think so. Perhaps what someone is observing is their perspective on what the present wildlife management plans have accomplished or not accomplished, stating that you can’t manage moose in high numbers to appease the moose watching public and businesses, while at the same time expecting to have a healthy moose herd. How many times have I written about this?

In addition, the same list of “Lessons Learned” shows that someone thinks you can’t manage for maximum moose numbers in the same location you are trying to manage deer at maximum numbers. Again, I have written about this problem in the past more than once.

Maine’s “Wildlife Planner” said that the Department knows what it would take to “do their job”(my words not his) but they don’t have the tools, claiming one of those tools to be, “We don’t own the land.” Does this indication the Department bemoans it is not a tyrant dictator or that they are failing to protect the king’s resources? Is Maine the only state that don’t have the tools nor own the land?

To lament that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife can’t do their jobs because of social issues, like being scared to harvest more bears, as well as habitat, climate change, education, disease, it makes no sense at all to bring in those who have been most instrumental in creating a social vs. scientific dilemma to solve their own problem. It would seem logical that as wildlife management has shifted from scientific to social, along with exploding social “problems” in dealing with wildlife issues, resulting in poor herd management, the trend should be returning to science and away from social. This is not difficult to grasp.

Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing repeatedly, making no changes, and hoping for a different outcome. Forming another committee is insane. It’s also a cop out for the wildlife department to draw focus away from their own failures, while saying they will seek the public’s input on wildlife management desires.

Big changes will never happen. If big changes are needed, it is only because it has taken years to move wildlife management away from a scientific North American Wildlife Management Model, to meet the non scientific demands of a misled and agenda-driven population. This is the real change that is needed, however, this will not happened when the same agents of change who caused it in the first place, are called upon to “fix” the problem.

There are none so blind as he who will not see.

Share

Conservation requires a multifaceted approach

*Editor’s Note* – At the end of the linked-to opinion piece, the author says:

“Today, the greatest threats to Vermont’s wildlife populations are habitat loss, climate change, forest fragmentation, invasive species, and the growing lack of connection to the outdoors experienced by our children.”

I disagree. The biggest threat to all wildlife populations are those pressing for paradigm shifts and the way we discuss game and wildlife management. The goal here is destroy a proven wildlife management program in order to allow the forests to remain untouched by humans, brainwashing people to think that if man would just leave the forests and the wildlife alone, it would manage itself and settle into some kind of Nirvanic balanced ecosystem. Unless that effort is stopped, habitat loss, fragmentation, invasive species are meaningless. As well, there will surely be no connection to the outdoors at it will be forbidden and any visits or education of such will be virtual accomplished only through technology.

Conservation is about more than leaving wildlife alone in the woods. We do not live in a pristine environment but rather one that has been shaped by human activity for hundreds of years. Regulated, legal hunting and trapping are among the most effective tools we have for managing those wildlife populations at risk of becoming overpopulated, unhealthy, or otherwise running into conflict with our human manipulated landscapes. By necessity, conservation must include the wise and thoughtful use of our wildlife resources and, perhaps most significantly, it is through this mindful consumption that many people find a deep and abiding respect for and understanding of wildlife which leaves them with an enduring desire to conserve these resources for future generations.

Source: Guest column: Conservation requires a multifaceted approach – Bennington Banner

Share

Endangered Species Act a Golden Parachute for Inept Wildlife Management

Recently I read an editorial in an online media outlet originating in Wisconsin. The editorial was actually a rebuttal in which the author, accused the first author of taking tactics and using information that was contradictory and incorrect (if only in the mind of the author). Laughable was the fact that the person rebutting the original article did the same thing. But that is all that is ever expected anymore.

However, there was one comment made in the rebuttal that caused me to stop for a few moments and ponder.

I then challenge Mr. Moore’s comment that “as many wildlife officials will tell you, it’s way too early to list them as endangered because scientists don’t really know what’s causing the decline.” As a wildlife biologist, I will tell you that not knowing the cause of a species to decline year after year is a very appropriate reason to list (or review) an animal as threatened or endangered. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will review the data to determine if the listing is warranted. The process is necessary. Without the protection of the Endangered Species Act, in many cases, scientists simply wouldn’t have time to figure out why species are declining (or find the solution) before the species is lost completely.

I quoted the entire paragraph to make sure readers got the context in which the emboldened sentence was written. One not so obvious question might be, if data exists that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can “review to determine” whether a species should be listed on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), then how can one claim “scientists simply wouldn’t have time” to understand that a species is in trouble?

The more obvious question should be to ask if the “scientists,” i.e. fish and wildlife biologists, don’t have or aren’t taking the time to understand wildlife, then how much blame can be placed in the lap of state and federal wildlife scientists for “endangered” species? We pay them money to do a job. They seldom have answers and more often devise problems and more problems that require money and more money. Where does this madness end and when will their be accountability for poor performance?

With far too much money being taken from license buyers and taxpayers to pay benefits and retirement pensions, little money is left to go toward wildlife management. The taxpayers are led to believe their money, and more money, is being used to “manage” species, but is it really? Retiring at age 50 with a pension might be what is adding to the lack of data and the seeming need to dump wildlife problems in the lap of the Federal Government, which is perhaps more corrupt and unable to do their jobs than what is found at the state level.

The rigged system seems to be crafted to allow for government employees to work at wages higher than the national average for the same job. When money runs short, the cry goes out for more – often with the qualifier that “there just isn’t enough money” to “have the time” to manage wildlife. License fees go up and nothing changes for the better…except for the pensions.

Once a species is neglected, the same rigged system creates another government department to deal with the prior’s ineptness. The Endangered Species Act becomes a parachute for state wildlife managers and a money-making machine for sue-happy environmentalists because they understand the system and they game it for their own profits.

I recall that in an earlier life I was working at constructing a thrill ride from the top of a mountain to the bottom. With blueprints in hand, I oversaw the erection of the equipment. One lesson I learned from this was that there were issues with the building of the track I knew would not make for a complete and operational product. Always asked, “what are we going to do about this?” often my answer was, “THEY will have to straighten it out later.” As you may guess THEY become I/we. I had no parachute nor the power or resources to create another entity to bail me out. Isn’t this what appears to be the case with the ESA? Does it act as a scapegoat for inept wildlife management that causes the mindset of “they” will have to fix it?

 

 

Share

The Colonial Origins of Conservation: The Disturbing History Behind US National Parks

*Editor’s Note* – Below is a teaser and a link to an article aimed at discovering the truth about “conservation,” it’s roots, and what it has done to the world. It’s also about the evolution of Environmentalism.

While many items in this article are true and based up truth, it is my opinion that the author, director of Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights, may rely on some wildlife management myths himself. However, much of what is written is worthy of reading and with most things we read and study today, we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

Iconoclasm – questioning heroes and ideals, and even tearing them down – can be the most difficult thing. Many people root their attitudes and lives in narratives that they hold to be self-evidently true. So it’s obvious that changing conservation isn’t going to be an easy furrow to plow.

Source: The Colonial Origins of Conservation: The Disturbing History Behind US National Parks

Share