April 30, 2017

Maine Cuts Moose Hunting Permits by “Just” 3%

Opportunity! That’s the adjunct word that is readily used today in describing hunting, fishing, and trapping. Once everyone is brainwashed into accepting the word “opportunity” as a privilege granted by the state, what else is left?

Why should I, or anyone, get riled up over a measly little 3% reduction in “opportunity” to hunt moose? Maybe I shouldn’t but that’s not the whole and truthful story in the matter.

According to what the Portland Press Herald just reported,  in 2013 the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) issued 4,085 moose hunting permits. Those permits are handed out through a lottery process. Just announced by MDIFW is that this year’s permit allocation will stand at just 2,080. However, let’s make sure that Maine sportsmen understand that there is still “opportunity.” We can’t fault MDIFW’s management plans and execution of those plans because, well, we still have “opportunity.” That’s how many sportsmen see things. As I said, “opportunity” is the word.

If MDIFW keeps cutting permits, the moose numbers may recover to where 4,000 or more permits are allotted. By then the tick problem will resurface and MDIFW can find some Federal funds and/or grant money and conduct another study on the affects of winter ticks on moose, all the while never bothering to study the tick itself. It’s easier just to take what the environmentalists have perpetuated that global warming causes ticks. Science and common sense are no longer a part of the equations. Always be ruled by the demands of the social groups.

There is, however, hope…well, not really. I just like to say that, I suppose in the same fashion that fish and game departments love to promote “opportunity.”

Okay! So, we are supposed to cut the managers some slack because they are still in the middle of a moose study. Probably ten years from now, we will still be saying Maine is in the middle of a moose study. Or maybe the sharing of the results and data of this moose study will happen as efficiently as when we get harvest reports for deer, bear and moose…never? We had to find out through the grapevine that MDIFW was conducting a deer study with the major land owners of northern Maine. Evidently this study is about how protecting deer yards is having no effect on the deer. Let’s go discuss it in the coffee shop. That has always worked.

We know winter ticks are being blamed for fewer moose which results in fewer hunting permits (opportunist). I don’t have a problem with that….well, mostly not. Of course increased winter ticks has always been blamed on global warming, even though Maine’s head moose biologist says, “With moose the hypothesis that is being talked about has to do with climate, but it’s complicated. It seems spring and fall affect the winter ticks, that and high moose densities.”

Notice he did call it a hypothesis. It appears this hypothesis, like all other hypotheses, still provides the escape to blame all things on climate change. Winter ticks have been around the world since the beginning of time. Who did the first moose biologists blame the ticks on?

I refuse to even hint that Kantar is suggesting anything will ever be done about “high moose densities” unless it is done by Nature the way it has in the past 3 years. There are too many moose, causing too many ticks and those ticks are killing off the moose. The reports are that this year’s winter tick mortality has been considerably less than the previous 3. What has happened to the moose population during this time? Who knows. They won’t tell us. Is a reduction in moose population directly proportional to the reduction in ticks. Nah, it’s the drought and the cold winter. Don’t you know?

Aside from all this, the state wouldn’t dream of reducing moose populations to mitigate ticks and other diseases, including public safety and private property issues, because they fear the lobby of the environmentalists and those looking to make a buck gawking at moose. I don’t blame those looking to make a buck…but at what expense.

But, never fear. Maine sportsmen will always have their “opportunities.” Opportunities may not exist for all or even most. If you’ve got the money, you can increase your chances, even while the chances continue to dwindle. If there remain but one lone moose permit, deer permit, bear permit, etc. Mainers couldn’t complain because MDIFW has protected their opportunities.

If LD 11, a constitutional amendment said to protect hunting, fishing and trapping in Maine, were to pass, how easy it will become to protect opportunity.

Fabulous!

Time Keeps on “TICK”ing

Climate Change Narrative of Convenience

There’s money in research. There’s no money in finding cures or answers.

I laughed yesterday listening the fake Speaker of the House talking fake stuff about the Congressional Budget and the fake process taken by the fake Congress to lie, cheat and steal, being careful to appropriate enough money to pay off the lying, cheating and stealing cronies that make sure they keep getting elected. The fake Paul Ryan was asked by a fake reporter if he and Congress were comfortable about cutting the budgets of departments that enable all the freeloaders in this country, including Meals on Wheels and the Institute on Health. Of course the liar, who is fake, never answered the question but what made me laugh was when he began to explain that Congress planned on spending more money to prop up the fake Institute on Health, “because they are getting real close to finding cures for such things as cancer…” Yessiree bub! And for how many decades has the health industry been real close to finding a cure for some fake afflictions in which they created? All they need is just some more money.

This criminal activities abound throughout all of governments, but don’t go look. How dare anybody suggest taking money away from finding cures for problems that government made or allowed to be made?

It may appear that I’m getting off the subject but I’m not. One of the big money makers of the last decade has been the fake “Global Warming” which soon become “Climate Change” because stupid people, along with corrupt, stupid and greedy fake scientists are willing and eager to play the role of useless eaters – so long as they get paid, a pension, and a cellphone.

Wanting to believe in terrible things that man does, drives those who want, so badly, to believe. They strive to be a True Believer. This action, the result of planned mass mind manipulation and propagandizing, rolls out a red carpet for implementation of “Climate Change” as the cause for anything that can become a money-making convenience. Not only does perpetuating the myth of climate change make money but it becomes the ignorant and lazy man’s way of life. So few will go out of their way to honestly dispute the false claims, that those who do are looked upon as being some kind of nut. When the threats to the convenient narrative become great enough, this is when we begin to see and hear the fascists step forward to demand action to censor such talk, a kind of new Sedition Act, if you will. And the True Believers back this action.

Making attempts to expose the fraud become more and more difficult. Quitting would only play into the hands of those who profit from hoaxing Climate Change and so, the handful of us continue in the effort, alone.

Climate Change can and has been an excuse for anything and everything. It’s gotten so bad that in my household, if someone should burn the toast, the car won’t start or somebody’s dog pissed on the shrubs in front of my house, the comment, accompanied but much laughter, immediately becomes, “Damned Global Warming!”

That’s not that far from reality. A real life example of the Climate Change Narrative of Convenience is under full employment when it comes to wildlife management, or perhaps more accurately it should be wildlife mismanagement, a.k.a. Environmentalism.

Moose in the Northeast States are suffering from winter tick infestation. Of course Climate Change is to blame for there being too many ticks. Let’s forget about any scientific proof or understanding about this entire concept of moose ticks and global warming, because we know the fake wildlife scientists have, and consider for a moment that the reason there are so many ticks killing moose, is because of Climate Change’s climate change. The remarkable thing about Climate Change and the narrative of convenience is that it can fit any situation, regardless of facts or the lack thereof. After all, it is convenient.

If a changing climate is so effective that it can magically grow millions of ticks in northern New England, then the same affect must be making serious changes in other things as well. That would only make sense, if you had a brain. I hate to bring this up at a time like this, but science has told us that this winter tick is an extremely viable creature. Doesn’t it then make sense that any kind of climate change would have to be severe enough to cause a change from a population of ticks that was negligible, to a population large enough to kill 70% of calf moose and thousands of other adult moose?

Let’s forget that during this same time frame that the moose population in Maine, as near as can be estimated, went from somewhere around 20,000 animals to as many as 90,000. We must still adhere to the fantasy of Climate Change.

Continuing on with the false Climate Change reasoning, if we have then established a base that Climate Change’s climate change was severe enough to severely influence an extremely viable tick to increase in exponential numbers, then what else has taken place in places like Maine that would tell an inquisitive scientist, that this same climate change is running rampant? Sorry, I think this falls under inconvenience.

Climate Change fascists have convinced the masses that Climate Change is going to turn the “climate” in places like Maine to be similar to that of New Jersey. Is that happening, or beginning to happen? Some think so but where’s the proof? Talk is cheap. Lying and embellishment against truth is the norm.

We are told that moose cannot and will not be able to survive in Maine because of Climate Change and that they will migrate north to Canada…perhaps beyond the Arctic Circle. Are they? They may all be killed by ticks before any migration can take place. We are repeatedly told that the white-tailed deer in Maine is living in the extreme northerly fringe of its natural habitat/climate. Don’t look on a map to discover that New Brunswick, Canada is further north than Maine and they still have deer. Maybe Climate Change’s climate change has effected New Brunswick yet.

If Climate Change is happening enough to grow millions of ticks, surely that Climate Change is causing deer to grow and grow and grow, because Maine’s climate is resembling that of New Jersey. Is this happening? I’d suggest that readers take a look at the available statistic to answer this question, but you won’t bother.

This nonsense could go on, it seems, forever, but nobody cares or will listen. They don’t want to. They don’t know how. There’s money to be made. The Climate Change Narrative of Convenience is at work here. There’s convenience in using weather to convince people the climate is changing. There’s no convenience to point out that if Maine’s climate is warming enough to grow winter ticks, then Maine’s wildlife scientists should disregard any talk of severe winters and get rid of the complicated Winter Severity Index, which is probably just a “convenient” political tool to make more money. If the climate has changed this much, why then does Maine continue to have record-breaking snowfall, record-breaking cold temperatures? There’s convenience to disregard these truths but take to the Media to hype whenever there is some kind of perceived weather anomaly and conveniently blame Climate Change’s climate change.

There is convenience to say that Climate Change grows ticks that kill moose, but there’s no convenience to point out that this same tick is found all over the earth, from the hot dry lands of Texas to the frigid Arctic air of Alaska and the Yukon. Has Climate Change’s climate change had any effect on these ticks in Texas and the Yukon? A climate influence so great that it grows ticks by the millions in Maine must be having some kind of effect on these other places. Ticks must be dying from excessive heat in Texas. Ticks must be growing by the millions in the Yukon.

There is convenience to say that deer can’t survive in Maine because it is at the northern fringe of it’s range. It is inconvenient to point out that if the climate is changing so much as to grow unusual numbers of winter ticks, the climate in Maine must now be able to support more deer, without the need for winter deer yards because the fringe line has moved north.

There’s convenience to point out that Climate Change is causing the polar ice caps to melt causing the sea water levels to rise. It is inconvenient to acknowledge that ice masses are growing and using their same logic of convenience, the sea water levels must then be shrinking.

Is it too late to offer hope that one day people will come to terms with what is truth and what is not? I image it is. We have had all sensible intelligence bred out of us. We are mostly incapable of thought, especially independent thought. The sooner they can get rid of “anarchists” like me, the happier they will be. They have reason to celebrate. More of us are dying everyday. Soon there will be none and they can go about doing whatever it is they are going to do to kill off a few billion of YOU people. I am sorry that there are so many people standing up for and fighting for their own demise.

But, whatever you do,

DON’T GO LOOK!

Climate Change is Affecting Brain Cells of Reporters and Scientists

Hell, why not. I vowed I wasn’t going to waste my time further correcting and offering some honest appraisal of the way in which agenda-driven journalists and scientists use speculation and unproven statements of fact to sell copy and/or promote an agenda – one that most often in connected with money.

However…….

I was reading the other day an article published by Accuweather.com carrying with it the title, “Moose-Killing Ticks Thrive in Shorter Winters Due to Climate Change.” It is so filled with inaccuracies and outright fraud that I couldn’t let it fall by the wayside. More people need to call these frauds out and make them pay.

Let’s start at the beginning. I will post here a statement and then offer rebuttal.

“Moose calves across northern New England are dying at alarming rates, and scientists believe that deadly parasites benefiting from shorter winters are the primary culprits.” – Please understand simple English. Scientists “believe” does NOT verify any such fact. As a matter of fact, if you took the time to read every available “study” on this topic, nearly all of the information is copy and pasted from someone else and text is loaded with terms such as, “believe,” “suspect,” “might,” “assumed,” etc. I acknowledge that Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are in the middle of moose studies, mostly to determine the causes of death. If they are able to do this, God only knows what useless drivel they will charge us with after the fact. Instead of reporting that “scientists believe,” perhaps a bit more honesty would be a better approach, i.e. “from information gathered to this point of the study, along with data and information provided from previous studies, winter ticks are found to be…….blah, blah, blah. But that doesn’t sell copies nor does it sway public opinion, leaving them with the unsubstantiated, hyperbolic, emotional, clap-trap claims that winter ticks, due, of course, to “Climate Change” are killing moose “at alarming rates.” And to further clarify, I might ask, is this “alarming” rate one of perspective from the author, the scientist, the next-door neighbor, the dog or the cat? How does this “alarming” rate compare to other years, perhaps dating back to the time of Noah? They won’t tell you because they don’t know.

“…killing about 70 percent of moose calves.” – Where does this information come from? (Boston Globe) It is important to know because I have spent enough hours, days, weeks, months and years studying this information to know that there exists a tiny number of actual studies of the winter tick or moose tick (Dermacentor albipictus) to know that even within the handful of studies, one study is used to support the other study…as studies go. Right or wrong, it matters not to a reporter interested in a story. Where did this statistic come from? It is important because for one, it renders much of the entire article without any credibility. But, again, that doesn’t stop the effort to sell copy.

““It’s just off the charts; this should not happen with such frequency,” said [the] chairman of the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment at the University of New Hampshire (UNH). “This is about a calf carrying 75,000 ticks that are draining it of blood.”” – This is emotional clap-trap, which, of course, sells copies. I understand the use of an analogy to describe what this person perceives as a whole bunch of ticks that are found on moose. If you’ve seen a moose covered in winter ticks, it is quite astonishing. However, a scientist/professional should refrain from such emotional nonsense. “Off the charts.” What charts. Is this person saying that he has historic, scientific charts that show that 75,000 winter ticks on a moose is the highest it’s ever been? If so, produce them. If not, one has to wonder if there isn’t money to be made by influencing public opinion while playing on their emotions by describing the dire misery a poor and innocent moose calf might be experiencing.

This same person also states, “this should not happen with such frequency.” How does he know this? Once again I ask that he provide the historic, scientific documentation that shows ticks in numbers of 75,000 is higher than it’s ever been. Or is this about perpetuating an unproven theory about Climate Change and attaching it to a moose study that might be in need of more money?

“… at the center of a six-year study in which researchers in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are attaching tracking devices to moose as part of an effort to learn how ticks are affecting them.” – I have addressed this in the past. The claim by all three state’s studies is that they are trying to determine the mortality rates of moose and what forms of mortality are causing it. To claim that part of the study is to determine “how ticks are affecting” moose, cannot be done, other than to perhaps devise some percentage figure of how many moose deaths are caused by ticks. To learn how ticks affect moose, one must undertake a separate study of the tick, instead of simply relying on sketchy, echo-chamber studies that make claims that still remain unsubstantiated.

“In addition, unlike deer and other animals, moose appear to do a poorer job of removing ticks through grooming.” – This is an unscientific claim, for what purpose I’m not sure. “moose appear to do a poorer job.” I have to ask the question, appear to whom? Is it what the reporter perceives in his or her travels and research on moose, or is this just something he or she reads someplace else, repeating over and over again? I have read often in winter ticks studies that “it is thought to be” that moose aren’t as good at grooming as other wild ungulates, but I’ve never seen any scientific substantiation of that claim. Of course that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. So, in short, we really don’t know if moose are poor groomers or whether the smell of their hair is a giant attractant, or some other such reason that might cause moose to attract winter ticks more than other ungulates. Why not? One guess is as good as another.

(Note: Readers should bear in mind that finding cures, answers and solutions to such scientific/biological “problems” dries up the money source. Finding solutions sends these scientists to the poor house.)

“Winter ticks may be thriving in part due to the New England ecosystem being disrupted by global climate change. According to AccuWeather Senior Meteorologist …., the average winter temperature in Maine has climbed 4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1895 and 2015.

“This region of the country is one of the areas that’s warming the fastest in the lower 48 (U.S. states),”” – I emphasized “may be” again, because it is not a scientific term. How can you report on science by repeatedly using such wishy-washy terms? But here’s the real kicker – one that the worshipers of Climate Change refuse or are incapable of understanding.

According to what this reporter says, a meteorologist claims that between 1895 and 2015 Maine “average winter temperature” has increased 4 degrees F. It is completely dishonest for any meteorologist to make this claim unless they can provide proof of the following extremely important elements of scientific temperature research: 1. That since 1895 the science collecting agency – it must remain the same agency providing the same data – is using the exact same equipment in 2015 that it used in 1895, and, 2. That the locations of the collection sites have not changed both geographically and its immediate surroundings, and, 3. That the agency responsible for the collection and perpetration of temperature data hasn’t “fudged” the data to promote agendas – that is agendas that are sure to continue the flow of cash as well as perpetuation of political agendas.

Science 101 tells us that in making comparative judgements of possible changes in anything, all testing and equipment used, etc. must always remain constant. How else can you make an honest assessment?

It has been often repeated in news reports (and yes, you decide if any of the information in those reports is truthful or not) that the locations of where temperatures are taken, have moved all over the map, destroying that portion of consistency. We can only assume that the equipment has all changed. Do we trust those involved to have made honest adjustments and provided transparency to inquiring minds as to how changes to sample collecting may have been altered?

We know that there has been more than one occasion when those involved with Climate Change, have lied about information and have manipulated the data in order to support claims made or to continue the promotion of collecting research monies and political agendas. NOAA, it was recently discovered, deliberately changed its data to influence “charts” like the one provided by Accuweather in this article to promote Climate Change. This is a criminal act but ignored because people just want, so badly, to be True Believers.

“According to …, a staff entomologist for the National Pest Management Association (NPMA), the winter tick benefits from a warming climate.” – Unless this person has conducted studies on the winter tick to make such a determination, it would be my guess that he is simply supporting the Climate Change Echo-Chamber. There is little science done that would support this claim, and others. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

““In the past, snowfall and freezing temperatures in early/mid spring have curbed winter tick populations by killing a percentage of those ticks that dropped off their host,”” – This unproven clap-trap is repeated so often, even scientists think it’s a fact. All one must do is spend a little bit of time gleaning through the documentation that does exist and you can discover just how extremely viable the winter tick is. Once you’ve learned that, you’ll see how silly it is to make claims that a week of snow here and a bit colder there, will kill the ticks at whatever stage they are at.

“…steadily rising temperatures have caused the fall season in New England to be slightly longer, by about a week, while the winters have also been shortened. That extra week in which winter is delayed gives ticks an extended window to latch onto moose for the duration of the winter.” – Odd that I just heard this same claim being made by a Maine biologist also studying moose this winter – echo-chamber of propaganda. (Boston Globe) It would seem to make sense to the average Joe, especially a mentally deficient one who thinks Climate Change is real, that a longer, warmer Fall season would, naturally (wink-wink) increase tick production. But does it? The truth is, these guys don’t know. They are only repeating what they have been told and refusing to pay attention to information that might be contradictory to the religion of Climate Change.

In studies that exist, the number one deterrent to ticks getting onto moose in the late Summer and early Fall, is weather…specifically wind. As part of the winter tick’s life cycle, in late summer the animal begins it’s ascent of vegetation – sometimes as high as 15-20 feet. Some “believe” this action is triggered by the duration of light as it is shortening heading into Fall. If there are brisk winds during this process, it will often blow the tick off the vegetation and they must begin their ascent again. If the timing is such, and this dynamic of tick-up-vegetation and getting on a moose is a short one, the tick fails to hitch a ride on the moose or other host for the coming winter. This, of course, breaks the life cycle and those ticks die.

It happens to be coincidental, or perhaps it was God’s plan, that at the same time that the ticks are making their way up the vegetation, that moose are at their most active stage – i.e. the mating season. This event also is “believed” to be caused by the same decreasing of available light. One could conclude that a skewing of these two events, even in small quantities could upset the tick’s life cycle, but how much?

It is not incorrect to state that an extra week of plant climbing for the ticks in Fall might contribute to some increased activity, however, the extent to which that might apply would be heavily dependent upon timing of the mating season and weather conditions.

“He added that climate change has the greatest impact on insects like ticks rather than large mammals like moose….the tick infestations are driving the moose die-offs.” – We must see some scientific substantiation of such claims. To make such a claim about how Climate Change has a greater influence on ticks suggests that the tick, at all stages of its life cycle, is susceptible to weather/climate changes. I have not read any scientific evidence that would suggest anything other than that the winter ticks is an extremely viable creature that has very little in the way of negative influences due to climate and weather.

“While winter ticks may benefit from shorter winters, they are not helped by drought conditions.” – Yes, and I have read this now from several separate echo-chambers. All it takes is one news report to publish that drought conditions limit tick production and the media runs with it. Tomorrow it will be something else.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record. I have already stated that wind is the single most determining factor to tick mortality during the vegetation-climbing stage. I have also stated that the tick is extremely viable in all temperatures and climate conditions, as can be attested in the varying climate worldwide where the tick survives quite well….thank you. These same studies, which seem to be of little interest to anyone else, also suggest two things: 1. Increased humidity can slow down tick activity, and 2. Cold and damp weather during the vegetation climbing phase and moose activity phase, MIGHT also slowdown tick activity. Contrary to reports that “old fashioned winters” KILL winter ticks, it appears to me that weather might only slow down their activity at differing times. It is for this and many other reasons that I am a firm believer that the reason the winter tick is being seen as a killer of moose is because wildlife managers have caved to the whims of society and have grown far too many moose. Perhaps time will give us that answer but I have serious doubts.

I have often told the story – and heck, why not one more time – of the man who went to his neighbor and asked to borrow his ax. The neighbor said, “No! It’s Tuesday.” Perplexed the man wanted to know what Tuesday had to do with borrowing his ax. The neighbor’s reply was, “Nothing! But if I don’t want you to borrow my ax, one excuse is as good as another.”

As long as the media and science cling criminally to a false theory of Climate Change (they don’t want to loan their ax), taxpayers can expect nothing to change (one excuse is as good as another). With this in mind, all studies, like the ones now underway with moose and moose mortality, will be a waste of time and money. The real scientific method is no longer in play. Neither is honest journalism. We live in a post-normal society where the most important things in life have been cast aside and replaced with immoral, dishonest and self-serving agendas, i.e. the means justify the end.

Journalism today is to employ a keyboard and then just copy and paste what the last guy wrote. It seems that “science” has picked up the torch and is doing the same thing. This post-normal science is perpetuated by Scientism – the religious worship of fake science to prop up personal idealism.

Each time I do one of these rebuttals I say I’ll never waste my time again. Nobody cares and nobody listens. They only hear what they want to hear and this infectious disease has so deeply taken root in our society that the same approach is taken for everything that we do.

I just wonder!

 

Kill Deer To Limit Lyme Disease – Moose Ticks? Global Warming

In this article I was reading, it amazes me that doctors, politicians and scientists will argue that if you want to limit the infestation of the ticks that carry Lyme disease, we need to kill or eradicate the landscape of deer.

And yet, moose are dying by the tractor trailer truck load and it is blamed on global warming.

Is any connection being blocked due to political agendas? Probably.

Killing Ticks With Foods Laced With Anti-Parasitic Meds

What could possibly go wrong?

I read an article this morning about how in one area of Texas, where a certain tick carries a disease known as cattle fever. The plan, on deer ranches, is to lace the corn being fed to deer, with this anti-parasitic drug. Hmmm.

One small paragraph in the article states: “The use of treated corn or pellets to control internal parasites in deer is not new, as it has been used by deer and exotic breeders for years. It is not currently legal for use on wild deer, although some ranchers advocate that it should be.” (emboldening added)

In my travels I have heard of suggestions similar to this to kill ticks in deer that cause Lyme disease and winter ticks in moose, that can eventually kill a moose by depleting its blood supply. I don’t believe I have ever heard any serious discussion about this within the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

In a related event, those willing to acknowledge that wolves can carry and spread up to 50 different diseases, viruses and parasites, have suggested some kind of “feeding” program that would address the more deadly of the viruses, such as Echinococcus granulosis and Echinococcus multilocularis.

Some of the problems that should be examined thoroughly before any attempt at feeding wild deer and moose medicine-laced foods, is first to have a complete understanding of why there is a problem, where it comes from and how it is spread. We don’t know this information.

In Maine’s case, where Lyme disease is present, and where winter ticks on moose have become a very serious problem for the animal, there is no consensus that can answer any necessary questions. In other words, it hasn’t even been determined if Maine is growing too many moose and in some places, seemingly coincidental to prevalence of Lyme disease, too many deer. Is it responsible to use chemicals in wild deer and moose, simply because we want to see more deer and moose?

There are so many factors that influence diseases, parasites and viruses, the notion to stuff an animal’s food with drugs to supposedly stop one action, might create a firestorm of other problems. Wildlife managers should know these things and if they don’t, it’s time they did.

Vermont Moose Study: Ah, Say What?

Maybe there is still hope to save the moose. In an article found Online at The Sun, Vermont Fish and Game biologists are quoted as saying, “Winter ticks spread more rapidly when moose are overabundant,” said Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department’s lead moose biologist. “Although we decreased Vermont’s moose herd to reduce the impacts of moose on the landscape, it may have also contributed to the much lower rates of winter ticks on Vermont’s moose than biologists observe on moose in New Hampshire or Maine.”

However, there are a couple of thing also written in this article that makes me pause and exclaim, SAY WHAT?

For those with some knowledge know that the media, most often fed by fish and wildlife departments, lay the blame of reduced moose populations squarely on global warming, even when there is no science to support such a claim. As we have learned, global warming is a very convenient excuse for everything. And of course, we have reached a point in moose studies where scientists seem to agree that much of the loss of moose through the United States is caused by the infestation of moose ticks, or winter ticks – Dermacentor albipictus. The problem is that it appears there is no agreement as to why there appears to be a problem of too many ticks and too many moose dying from those ticks. Many simply want to lay the entire blame on some fabricated idea of a warming climate. Certainly weather, as has been shown, affects tick survival and perpetuation. Weather is NOT global warming.

Now Vermont is whistling a different tune: “Vermont has already taken steps to help reduce the issue of the winter ticks by increasing the number of licenses sold to hunt moose in recent years. This has taken the population of the species from over 5,000 in the state in the early 2000s to around 2,200 moose today. The species is healthiest at medium densities…” This is perhaps the first I’ve heard of this claimed deliberate action to reduce Vermont’s moose population.

In the “Say What?” category we read:

“As seasons in recent years have warmed up, the winter ticks have been more able to survive and reproduce in the winter.” Winter ticks don’t “reproduce” in winter.

“They don’t pose a problem to deer because deer evolved with the species present…” I don’t understand what the embolden statement means. Somebody help me! I’ve fallen and can’t get up!

SAY WHAT?

 

MDIFW Should Design All Game Hunts Around What I Want

I think that is what I am hearing. No, not that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is designing all it’s hunting plans around what best suits my fancy. What I think I am hearing though is that everyone else wants MDIFW to pay special attention to their needs, I guess, thinking them to be more important.

I would like to say that I don’t envy MDIFW’s job of designing 15-year management plans for moose, bear, turkeys and bear but it appears some of the difficulties being encountered are problems they or the Legislature brought on themselves. When you go out and get “stakeholders” to come sit around a table to discuss how things ought to be run, what do expect would happen? When you survey the ignorant public, the purpose of which is always to achieve desired results, and then try to manipulate your game management plans according to what the survey says, what is it that you expect?

Add to that bringing in some radical animal rights pervert interested in only banning hunting, trapping and fishing, and what then would you expect?

Here’s a laundry list of items I’ve read about that some want MDIFW to consider when it comes to managing moose.

1. Kill more moose

2. Kill fewer moose

3. Change the moose hunting seasons – for so many different reasons it appears all of them are for selfish reason, with little consideration for the welfare of the moose – and absent the scientific process.

4. Spend gobs more money to further study the moose – with still no mention about studying the tick.

5. Have a basic free-for-all moose hunt in the southern zones.

6. Stop hunting moose in the southern zones.

7. Reduce moose numbers due to damage to the forests.

8. More hunting during the rut. Less hunting during the rut.

9. Stop hunting moose during grouse season.

10. Schedule hunts around the schedules of camp and guide owners.

11. More studies should be done on moose/vehicle collisions before issuing more or less moose permits.

12. Shoot only bulls, shoot only cows, shoot only barren cows, shoot one or maybe two calves.

13. Use the current moose study data to determine moose harvest. Don’t use the current moose data for anything.

And I’m sure I’ve left off more than I’ve included.

Yikes! And where is the scientific evidence to substantiate all these claims of what MDIFW ought to do? I thought so.

There is one thing that is certain. Even after MDIFW has been spending the past 3 years studying moose, counting them and trying to figure out what role, exactly, the winter tick plays on moose survival, while mired in climate change hocus-pocus, everyone knows better about what to do…including myself, I should add. But I really do…wink-wink.

It’s a crap shoot! It doesn’t much matter what MDIFW does, they are probably damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

We can only hope that in time, biologists will figure it out and use science, instead of “stakeholders” and an ignorant society telling them how many moose suits their fancy for their own personal agendas.

I read recently one writer calling a comment made by head moose biologist, Lee Kantar, “interesting.” I might be wrong, but I assume by “interesting” he either didn’t understand or didn’t agree. I don’t have the exact quote, so I’ll attempt to paraphrase his comment. It concerned moose and automobile collisions. Kantar said that it was “inappropriate” to say that having a moose hunt in southern Maine would reduce collisions.

Perhaps to disagree is not to understand. For those not of the ability to understand, perhaps they are not in a position to be offering advice to MDIFW either?

I think it’s an insult to insinuate that Lee Kantar isn’t smart enough to put together a hunt for moose that would or would not have an affect on car collisions.

Figure that one out!

While Biologists Dither, Hunting Opportunities Are Squandered

Maybe there is some hope…or maybe not. An article in the Boston Globe provides a few statements from so-called wildlife biologists that offer a glimmer of hope, even if ever so slightly.

Recently in an article I had written about how scientists are attempting to seek an answer to the affect of winter ticks on moose by only studying the moose and making huge assumptions about the tick – assumptions that have been passed on through half-ass “science” and incessantly repeated by the Media echo-chambers – I referenced a Boston Globe article echoing “Climate Change” as the reason there are too many ticks killing moose.

However, the latest bit of propaganda from the Boston Globe, might cause some of us to pause in hope that perhaps…just perhaps, there are some things that might be changing. (Note: Readers may or may not understand the extreme difficulty I find is uttering such statements.)

Let’s take a look at some of the comments found in this article.

The author of the piece begins by saying, “Researchers say that over the last few years, ticks have killed about 70 percent of the calves they have tagged in certain regions, an indication that the tick is taking a significant toll.”

Perhaps this statement needs further clarification and some more answers to important questions. The author says that “researchers” claim 70% of moose calves tagged “in certain regions” have been killed and that this indicates a “significant toll” on the moose. Does it?

Maybe it’s a significant toll in that one region but is this indicative throughout the greater region or the state being referenced? Most of these studies are centered around gaining a better understanding of how the tick effects the survival of the moose. In order to better understand this, it only seems plausible that scientists will pick areas they believe have high infestations of ticks and moose.

What isn’t being said here is that, if assuming the reference to “tagged” means collared and tracked, then 30% of collared moose calves are surviving. What also isn’t said is that we don’t know from the information given, whether the moose calves collared and data collected for this study, is representative of the entire state or perhaps just in areas believed to be the most heavily infested with winter ticks?

Under “normal” conditions, what is the “recruitment” or survival rates of moose calves? And what is the benchmark moose calve survival rate believed to be necessary to “sustain” a moose population? Sensational media reports might play to the emotionalism of ignorant readers but does little in revealing scientific honesty – or perhaps that’s an oxymoron.

“The study expanded last year to northern Maine — which Kantar said had a lower mortality rate of 48 percent — and to Vermont this month. There are about 250 moose collared for the study.” Lee Kantar is the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) head moose biologist. The differences in calf survival rates between 30% and 52% are significant. And yet again, we must ask whether these numbers can, in any way, be attributable to moose and tick interaction statewide?

“Kantar said the study was about moose survival — not climate …..

Every single day when temperatures are above the norm in the fall is another day that the ticks are out there and able to get on a moose.”

At first glance we are told that the moose study is about moose survival and not climate. This is immediately followed by a statement supporting global warming as a culprit of moose tick infestations. So, which is it?

And, let’s examine this statement that temperatures in the Fall making it easier for ticks to find a moose. Where did such a claim come from? And is this statement about fact or is it about what we are not being told? From all the studies and even the echo chambers repeating non-scientific mumbo-jumbo, is there data showing that warmer Falls leads to more ticks on moose? Or is it more repeated emotional, climate-change clap-trap?

In the late Summer and early Fall (September and October) when ticks are making their climb up vegetation to hitch a ride on a passing moose (or other ungulate – cattle, deer, pigs, elk, horses, etc.) temperatures at, or below, freezing will “slow down” activity. It is readily stated that in order for “weather” to significantly kill off ticks, an area needs temperatures to be below 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit for six consecutive days. Not only is this an unrealistic expectation in September and October, it is unrealistic in Maine throughout the winter.

Kantar’s statement that extended warm Fall days “is another day” that ticks can get on a moose, isn’t false. It’s just not very accurate and is misleading. In one breath we read how the studies being conducted aren’t about climate and yet climate appears to be the excuse.

If you want to believe what is written about ticks, the consensus is that “WEATHER” not climate is the biggest limiting or perpetuating factor for moose ticks. Some of the original tick studies that I have read clearly show that the moose tick, at every stage of its life cycle is extremely viable and is virtually unaffected by temperatures. Humidity can limit the productivity of the ticks, but wind is the biggest deterrent to keep ticks off the vegetation they climb where they can attach to a moose when it passes by. Other than any of this, it only makes sense that if you limit the free rides on ungulates, necessary to complete the life cycle, you will limit the presence of ticks.

“More moose, researchers say, mean more hosts for ticks.” Bingo! Give the man a cigar. Finally, I have found somewhere within the hollow, echo-chambers of the mass media that the increase in ticks might actually be directly proportionate to the moose population. In addition to this statement, we also read: “The biologists say that one possible way to control the problem, though counterintuitive, is increased hunting.”

Which brings me to the point of this post – dithering at the expense of hunting opportunities!

We further read: ““It’s just going to be a long and brutal situation for them, until the habitat either changes or humans decide we just need to take more of these animals.” (emboldening added)

Isn’t this part of the problem? Isn’t the extremely high moose population in Maine the result of both ignorance and the caving to the demands of the public for more moose for gawking? What in hell should a scientist expect when decisions are being made based on social demands rather than responsible wildlife management and science?

And lastly, we read, “We hope that the tick numbers are thus going to be reduced and at some point you get a new equilibrium of moose density.”

We hope?

Yes, at some point Maine will reach a “new equilibrium” of moose density. Unfortunately, I have serious doubts that the “equilibrium” will be at all stable if scientists continue to dither and cave to social demands. I really don’t think it requires tens of thousands of dollars to be spent on moose studies (and no money spent on tick studies) to figure out that too much of anything, in wildlife, isn’t very good. No, we don’t have the necessary data to make just about all the conclusions that are being drawn. We don’t know if the number of ticks in Maine now is normal, above or below normal. Maine should have figured out a long time ago that the state had too many moose and done something about it. Instead, they wanted to keep the moose gawkers happy and give them all the moose they demanded that could be seen from their living room picture windows.

Mother Nature is only doing what wildlife managers should have been doing. The old girl is killing off moose in droves in order to mitigate the tick infestation. What is extremely unfortunate in this dithering is, that, while the North American Model of Wildlife Management utilizes hunting as a means of managing and perpetuating wildlife, our new, post-normal, environmentally brainwashed “scientists,” too worried about social whining, would rather the hunting opportunities by thrown in the garbage in exchange for letting the ticks kill and waste the meat.

Maybe the idea is to grow tens of thousands of moose, thinking they can, and really making the moose hunting a bigger and better cash cow. There is a reason that moose don’t grow on trees and fill every corner of the forest. I guess we’ll have to spend a few hundred thousand more dollars and time, letting moose be managed by Mother Nature, in her cruel and wasteful way, stealing away hunting opportunities – which incidentally are funded by the hunters – perpetuating a situation in which the only winners are the companies that make the collars and fly the helicopters.

Does any of this make sense?

Scientism’s Helpful Echo Chambers

I spent several hours yesterday conducting a deeper, forensic search and examination into what most people would probably consider “scientific” pieces concerning Dermacentor albipictus, or what is most commonly known as the winter tick or a moose tick.

Anyone can do some basic research and discover a few pages of information displayed as conclusions about how the moose (Alces alces) is affected by the winter tick – the most of it being anecdotal evidence. In short, it’s a great example of the modern-day echo chamber that results in dreadful conclusions directed at promoting political agendas and non-scientific balderdash.

If you weed out the obvious and repetitious campfire weenie roasts of those who simply copy and paste someone’s work other than their own, you end up with a small handful of documents most are eager to label as scientific research and scholarship.

An honest approach to the existing pieces of work on winter ticks and moose, will find that the majority of the “research” (I hate to use that term) is geared toward how moose act and react when weighted down with the ticks. Very little is actually written or studied about the tick itself. Too much information written comes from assumptions and speculation.

It’s not that each of these somewhat scientific writings don’t contain useful information but the real problem lies in how to understand what is being written and separating it from the damned nonsense repeated in the media and other echo chambers.

An honest examination of each of these reports shows at least two issues that should prompt a legitimate researcher to, at least, ask some questions. One issue is that, like with most “scientific” papers, preexisting and perhaps precedent-setting conclusions, not necessarily ever challenged or questioned, are readily used by “scientists” to plug into their own work, to make it work, instead of doing their own. Problems abound from this approach even though it has become a readily acceptable form of dishonesty – in effect a bastardization of the scientific process.

The second issue, which leads to the real serious problems of dishonest scholarship, is that we read a lot of “we assume” and “it is believed” and “it could have been” – the list is endless of non specific, unscientifically supported, and troubling nonsense. It appears that these types of “conclusions” are often taken by other scientists, the media, or anyone searching for a narrative to fit their cause, as the gospel and honestly or dishonestly omit any reference to unsubstantiated conclusions.

Examining the text of all these studies, we see often where actual experimentation was given over to assumptions or another researcher’s conclusions, often based upon unproven and untested determinations. In one particular piece of work, the text read that “it was assumed” that the conditions “might have” etc.

In conducting such research, I often look for a common denominator. From there, I try to see if such common themes are the product of echo chambers or conclusions drawn from a person’s own scientific methods and precisely what those methods are. This requires patience and determination.

It appears that, from the few existing scientific papers available on winter ticks and moose, I could assess that each scientist or group of scientists claimed that the biggest factors effecting the viability of winter ticks, either after the engorged female ticks drop off the moose in Spring, during the time the female lays her eggs, or climbing vegetation as hatched new larvae, is weather and habitat. That is weather. They do not say climate. They state weather, and give examples of the kind of weather that can, both negatively and positively, effect the winter tick – wind, humidity, temperatures, dry/drought, etc.

This changing weather effects this tick (Dermacentor albipictus) everywhere that it exists. It is readily found in cold climate areas of Canada and Alaska, as well as in warm climates like Texas.

Echo chambers and those with political agendas, cherry pick incomplete information and dishonest conclusions to repeat the non-scientific nonsense that “Climate Change” is why Maine, and other states, have winter ticks. Odd, as well, is that these same mental midgets of mendacity, seem to have drawn their own conclusions that there are more winter ticks now than ever before. I wonder where they got that from?

We know from historic accounts that moose and winter ticks have been around for a long time. There are reports readily available that give anecdotal evidence of periods of time, from 1900 until present, where large numbers of moose have died off and that it was “believed or assumed” that perhaps the winter tick played a role. What does not exist, is scientific evidence that can tell us if the current level of infestation is greater than, less than, or the same as at any point in history. We simply do not know, but that doesn’t stop the Fake News echo chambers, along with many, many fish and game administrators and their assigns, in perpetuating information that may or may not be true.

Oddly, this attitude and approach puzzles me. What is to be accomplished by insisting on dishonest scientific research? I’m sure, with the brainwashing received in our education factories, few new-age biologists would think that there was anything wrong with simply passing bad information after more bad information, if they are clueless to the quality of the information being dealt with. The trouble is, how does this determine responsible wildlife management that we are told is for the purpose of providing the state with a healthy moose population? One can only think there must be something else behind the action – perhaps job security and perpetuation of political agendas, for surely the interest isn’t focused on the animal.

Maine has had moose long before any of us were around, and along with it has been the winter tick. Maine has had winters before and will continue to have winters. Maine has had “severe” winters and “average” winters. Maine has had “mild” winters. All of these conditions persisted over time and will persist into the future. Pulling the “Climate Change” card is too easy and convenient.

We know that the theory of man-caused climate change cannot and will not be proven. Therefore, it just seems a far too convenient an excuse for anything and everything,  providing the lazy scientist with a prostituted answer requiring no work.

I doubt there is little any biologist can do to mitigate the weather and how it will affect the survivability of the winter tick. If scientists would just get off this dead-end road that leads to global warming, perhaps, once again, some sensible scientific research could be put into place again.

I’m not holding my breath.