July 22, 2019

Sorry, Wildlife Viewing Is Not The Same As Hunting

I guess some think that because some rogue poll might indicate that “wildlife viewing” is a growing trend, that it will replace hunting because we live in a progressive, socialistic-totalitarian society filled with entitlement and selfish greed. Even certain reporters are clueless, as we find in this article: “There’s a new generation of outdoorsmen stalking wild game, but they’re not armed with bows or guns. Instead, they wield tripods and cameras. This movement represents a growing trend toward what Edward Putnam, the author of “Is Wildlife Viewing The New Hunting?,” calls “non-consumptive outdoor recreation.”<<<Read More>>>

To describe wildlife viewers as “stalking wild game” with cameras is a joke. There is no such thing that exists in an honest assessment of reality. Yes, there are a tiny handful of people who actually work very hard to capture high quality pictures. However, incorrectly presented in this article, those who call themselves “wildlife viewers” are not stalkers of anything, except perhaps the closest Starbucks.

They ride around in cars, many not actually purposefully seeking to “view” wildlife, hoping to catch a glimpse of some animal and if the window of the car isn’t too dirty, and won’t mess up the “doo” they might snap a shot with their stupid smart phone. Good for them.

Hunters, on the other hand, at least have to get out of their transportation devices, while some spend hours and miles of real “stalking” searching for food, that might happen to be a “trophy.” This event is a tradition that can’t even compare with cellphone photography. Only someone who has never done it would somehow think one would be the exchange of another.

But there is a real difference between the two – not mentioned in the article, other than to state that the interest in hunting holds steady while “wildlife viewing” appears to be of growing interest. They fail to explain the biggest reason hunting interest is not growing. I will.

Hunters are tolerant and generous people, willing to share the woods with anyone bent on taking photographs of wildlife. They don’t even mind that people drive around in climate controlled vehicles “viewing wildlife,” even though it is the millions of dollars hunters pay so that those “wildlife viewers” can occasionally catch a glimpse or snap a picture.

On the other hand, many of the “nonconsumptive” outdoor recreationists go out of their way, through misguidance and selfish entitlement, to stop hunting. This present society emboldens progressives to destroy heritage while at the same time forcing their lifestyle onto others. Are all “nonconsumptive outdoor recreationists” progressive destroyers forcing their lifestyle? Of course not but when we read articles, such as this one, where the term “nonconsumptive” is propped up as the antithesis of hunting, you don’t have to be a skilled code reader to understand what is being said.

There is no comparison between the two interests regardless of what ignorant writers have to say about it. However, I have no issue with photographers and viewers enjoying many of the same things that I do and I will never lift one finger to stop them from doing it. On the other hand, I wish I could say the same for them.

Share

Cut hunting permits 24 percent so public sees more Maine moose, plan urges

*Editor’s Note* – I can hear the nonsensical comments from the environmentalist-trained game managers that they must manage wildlife according to social demands. I think in the circles I grew up in and the research that I conduct on a daily basis, the effect is called communism. It was the Roman writer Marcus Tullius Cicero who wrote after the fall of the Roman Republic, which was replaced by the Roman Empire, that: “The evil was not in bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of the games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease.”

I guess we are supposed to ignore the schizophrenic actions and reactions of moose managers from the past 4 or 5 years who one day tell Maine citizens there’s at least 90,000 moose, to they’ve all died from winter ticks, and now a population of 60,000 to 70,000 and the head moose biologist is, “so giddy about” the number of moose he is seeing in his aerial surveys.

Some thought that the head moose biologist’s decision to cut moose permits over concern of a dwindling moose population was a hasty move. I’m not sure I would describe it as much hasty as I would wrong. I would have gone in the opposite direction in order to reduce the numbers of moose to mitigate the infestation of winter ticks – evidently the number one killer of Maine moose. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) insists on grasping desperately to global warming as the answer and perhaps they shouldn’t be.

If MDIFW believe in global warming, which that seems to be their number one excuse for everything, then why react in the way they are because they believe last winter the weather was harsh enough to kill off a few ticks and suddenly the herd is healthy again? Surely, global warming will return (in their minds?) and along with it will be more winter ticks – according to their own conclusions as to why there are so many ticks.

Evidently, we are to ignore any scientific evidence as it might pertain to decisions made on how moose should be managed. We read in the article linked to below, that MDIFW is proposing a reduction of moose permits for the upcoming moose hunting season in order to provide more moose for viewing opportunities so that, “We can meet our objectives.” And MDIFW admits, as they always have, that this decision is based solely on “management” reasons [social demands] and is not scientific.

If wildlife viewing is becoming such an important central government decision to feed and entertain the servitude with “bread and circuses” then perhaps it is time to give the Motherland what she wants. Maine sportsmen spend millions of dollars each year that is meant to go toward wildlife/game management. As the pot boils and slowly kills the frog, few recognize that soon those valuable “hunting opportunities” will be replaced with the “bread and circuses” of “wildlife viewing.” Those demanding the entertainment don’t understand that managing game at numbers high enough to see from their cushy SUV’s and tour buses is seldom healthy and responsible for neither man nor beast. Evidently MDIFW doesn’t understand that either and/or are driven by totalitarian influences and out of fear of losing their handsome pensions they must appease the environmentalist gODs.

Maine is in the middle of a moose study – the reasons given because they don’t know enough about moose to understand what causes the changes in moose populations etc. If that’s true, then the study is a waste of time and money. What’s the point of collecting scientific evidence if it is to be trumped by pacifying the environmental-socialists by giving them their bread and circuses?

So why the reduction in permits?

“We want to meet our objective (for what the public wants as far as viewing). So it’s for management reasons rather than biological,” she said.

Source: Cut hunting permits 24 percent so public sees more Maine moose, plan urges – The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Share

Outdoors in Maine: Managing moose numbers best left to pros

*Editor’s Note* – Management of moose is the job of wildlife “pros.” However, not all wildlife pros know what they are doing and have agendas far and beyond “the best available science,” and sometimes even the rule of law. Therefore, we need watchdogs to keep a close eye on their every move, questioning those things that should be questioned.

The author of this piece (linked to below) tells of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) responsibility and legal obligations to manage moose for viewers and hunters. Managing any animal for the purpose of providing viewing opportunities is a non scientific event proving only to provide management complications for healthy populations. The North American Model, i.e. managing game for surplus harvest, (taking advantage of our God-given resource) has a proven scientific track record while providing a healthy resource.

As the author points out, it appears that attempting to manage the number of moose for viewing and hunting is warring against each other.

Something is wrong as far as I can see things. Hunters are restricted and the number of moose permits available to hunters rise and fall according to how MDIFW determines a need for population controls within Wildlife Management Districts (WMD). There is seldom any complaining by hunters for this, although sometimes we question the reasoning behind certain decisions. At the same time, we are seeing where people are demanding that hunters be short-changed in opportunities to harvest moose simply because of their demands for more viewing opportunities. I believe that what we have witnessed is MDIFW deciding to forego scientific moose management, according to the moose management plans, in order to placate the selfish desires of those riding around in cars hoping to see moose without any effort.

If it is proven, or if anyone is willing to connect the dots, that increasing moose populations to satisfy the social demands of viewers, is exacerbating the tick problem killing moose and spreading disease, this is something that needs to be seriously addressed.

Hunters would be cut off if management demands showed the need. The same much apply to moose watchers.

As Kantar will tell you, he and the Fish and Wildlife Department are obligated by law and tradition to safeguard the moose resource, for moose viewers as well as moose hunters. Ironically, it is possible that an excess of moose in Maine may be exacerbating the moose tick infestations that have taken a lot of young moose.

Source: Outdoors in Maine: Managing moose numbers best left to pros | Sun Journal

Share