May 24, 2019

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.

Share

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.

Share

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?

 

Share

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!

Share

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?

Share

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.

Share

Attempting to Resolve Maine’s Moose Management Dilemma With Half a Solution

Maine is working on developing big game management plans for deer, bear, moose and turkeys that will span the next 15 years. They have yet to release a “draft” management plan and so all we are able to get our hands on are bits and pieces. Please bear that in mind in considering the information to be presented in this article.

There’s one thing about drafting plans and management goals that I don’t think very many people understand – at least that is sure how it appears to me. Goals and projected achievements should be reasonable and attainable. Anything short of that, or greatly exceeding that, is dishonest, if not a complete waste of time.

From information I was reading the other day on George Smith’s latest article that contains some proposals being considered for these management plans, the first thing the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) will need to do is increase their working staff by about 400% – it may take more than that. Other than that, the proposals I am reading are mostly pie in the sky – “hope and change.” They appear much too grand. However…..

I want to take a moment and examine some of the proposals for moose management that Smith lists in his column. After listing out how the MDIFW is going to increase this perception from the public and decrease that perception from the public, while at the same time hoping planning to reduce the moose population, while at the same time make everyone feel good that the chances of hunting a moose have been cut in half in recent years, we see the following listed at the end of the long and quite ambitious proposals to manage moose:

“Develop an improved understanding of the role of winter ticks and moose density in annual adult cow and calf survival rates.

“Implement management actions to stabilize or decrease winter tick effects on moose mortality.”

Huh?

Maine and much of Northern New England are in the midst of a moose study. They are collaring moose and collecting data. It would seem the most data gets collected when a moose succumbs to winter ticks. From this proposal then, we are to assume that MDIFW is working on, or hopes to work on, or if “luck” goes their way they might be able to work on, “improved understanding” of the role winter ticks and moose density play in survival rates. And it appears this is what most of us are looking for. But is that enough? Will the ongoing study parameters give us what we really need to understand what is going on? What we read in these two proposals is typical double speak – lots of undefined gray areas. “Improved Understanding?” Maybe somebody could explain what that means. No, I’m not just being the usual pain in the ass. What does it mean? If collaring some moose shows more moose died than was first thought, is that “improved understanding?” What will that accomplish in providing any information that would assist in “implement management actions” to offset the negative effects of the winter tick?

After MDIFW figures out how to “improve” their understanding, they hope plan to come up with a management objective that will “stabilize or decrease winter tick effects on moose mortality.” One can only hope. How can they actually do that if they don’t have but half of the information needed? I believe this to be a valid and extremely important question.

I don’t know how Smith came up with the order in which he listed highlights of actions being proposed for moose management, but this idea of “improved understanding” and “actions to stabilize or decrease” winter tick effects on moose are the last two items listed. It seems to me that most of the items above in this list can be disregarded until such time as MDIFW figures out how many moose there are, and how many moose can healthily inhabit the Maine woods. Right now they don’t know and I have serious doubts they ever will. Here’s an example of what we are all subjected to on a regular basis and I’m sure that, from what I have seen, MDIFW is just as guilty as the next guy.

The Boston Globe ran a story today about how moose in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are being “devastated” by winter ticks. For those seeking some truth, it seems plausible that moose are dying because of the winter tick. We have no idea if this is a lot more than “normal” or “average” or perhaps it’s far smaller than in previous years. If you think you have a firm grip on the answer, please provide readers with all the studies and reports on how winter ticks effect moose populations. I thought so. Hopefully, the moose studies underway can answer some of the questions but it can’t answer all of them because there are no studies from the past to compare with. We might get a grip on how many moose are being killed under present conditions, or at least for the duration of the study, but what is there to compare these results with to know if the numbers are good, bad or the same? We are then left to guess…or should be, but, it will not be that way. If things go as they usually do when it comes to such studies, conclusions will be irresponsibly drawn and plastered in the “Fake News” Press about the same crap sandwich we have been fed for quite some time now. GLOBAL WARMING. It’s the convenient answer to everything.

Here’s further explanation. In reading the Boston Globe article, which is no different than any other news or magazine article, in which they must, evidently, get their news from members of the fish and game departments or those conducting the studies, anyone can easily determine that winter ticks are “devastating” moose and the reason for the ticks is caused by a warming climate.

Rinse and repeat!

Winter ticks are “devastating” moose and the reason for the tick increase is caused by a warming climate.

Rinse and repeat!

The echo chamber is in full saturation mode – probably by design and unbeknownst to those entrusted to apply the real scientific method. We live in a post-normal scientific world, ruled by Scientism, and controlled by Environmentalism. What else can be expected?

Everybody loves Bullwinkle….don’t they? Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!” But nobody cares much for a blood sucking tick. Eewwww! People really wouldn’t even want to discuss winter ticks if they could see a few tens of thousands of them, on one moose, blood-engorged and clinging onto a moose, draining it of all it’s life.

So what is the emotional thing to do? That’s right. Let’s spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and study….wait for it….the moose. Not that studies and learning about moose, etc., aren’t good ideas. In this case, the whole world seems to have it well in hand that winter ticks are “devastating” moose and the cause is ticks embellished by a warming climate. How does the Boston Globe, and all other news outlets, along with countless fish and game biologists and administrators, know that “Global Warming” is the cause of an increased load of winter ticks? Answer? They don’t. But the echo chamber, the rinse and repeat, has ignorantly and irresponsibly told the world this is so. And so, it is conveniently repeated – post-normal Scientism.

If this is so, and you have a firm grasp on the concept, please provide readers with a viable list of studies done on the winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus). No, no, no! I don’t want all those items of propaganda in which one clown copy and pasted from another clown and is now presented by any entity having to deal with winter ticks on their website and printed in literature. I mean, honest to goodness, scientifically processed, winter tick studies which include, not only the life cycle but what increases and decreases a tick’s chances of finding a host of blood for the winter. Is it the timing of the onset of winter and cold? Is it weather…not climate? Is it the vegetation available in specific regions? Does wind, rain, frost, snow, etc. have anything to do with it and if so, what? What are the low and high temperatures in which ticks can and cannot survive, and what is the duration of being exposed to those temperatures that might cause death? I also want information about where these ticks are found, geographically, and how the same ticks in different global regions and climate, if there are any beside Maine, survive and their related habits and functions to reproduce and perpetuate. How do these ticks effect other animals? If all of this is being assumed, and it is, how, then, can an honest scientists draw valid conclusions about how winter ticks effect the survival of the moose?

If you want some help finding those, let me know. I have about the only 2 or 3 studies that exist. I must also say, of the studies on this winter tick that do exist, nothing in the system of study and conclusions would support the theory (Fake News) that global warming is causing an increase in tick populations. Perhaps that disappointment is the reason the tick is not looked at.

But, I know you won’t go look.

So, if we are seriously interested in the “improved understanding” of how winter ticks effect moose and moose density, which is the only way any reasonable “management actions to stabilize or decrease winter ticks” can be accomplished, we must study the tick!

But will the tick be studied? I can almost guarantee that it will not be. Why? Because of fear that a study of the tick might prove that man’s created idea of global warming has nothing to do with the ticks. Then where would the money and job security go? We all know, or should by now, that the quickest way to lose grant money for studies and research, is to find cures and solutions. God forbid that should happen.

I can already conclude that the results of the moose study will, more than likely, be that winter ticks are killing moose at a rate greater than first anticipated, that it is caused by a warming climate, that moose hunting permits will be drastically cut, or eliminated, because social demands in Maine call for over 100,000 moose for lazy-ass moose gawkers.

After all, they can’t see those nasty ticks from their climate controlled automobiles.

Share

Is Maine Seriously Considering Managing for Moose OR Deer in the Northwoods?

George Smith’s latest article suggests that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is seriously considering whether to manage the state’s Northwoods for either moose or deer but not both.

It appears that history as been put far back in the darkest closet that could be found at MDIFW headquarters. Maine used to have a “balance” (poor choice of word) of moose and deer in the north country. There also seems to be a major roadblock to any rational discussions about management due to the echo chamber of “loss of habitat” and “global warming.”

In 8th-Grade science, one of the first things we were taught was to look for what might have changed that could have caused a change in results. Evidently blinders exist on things that biologists don’t want to see and that is part of the major roadblock.

Northern Maine has never seen an overgrown population of deer. And I really don’t know of anyone with half a brain that wants it any other way. I spoke with a hunting guide who operates out of the Allagash and he told me that having 4-6 deer per square mile in the “Big Woods” was exactly the way it should be. It is part of the draw that leads hunters to those locations.

I’ve not seen any information coming out of MDIFW that would indicate that the density of deer in Northern Maine has changed much with the overgrown existence of moose, but this dynamic hasn’t existed that long in the grand scheme of things. Moose have been allowed to grow so large in numbers, disease (a natural process) has taken over and is accomplishing what man refuses or can’t do, because of social demands.

In what little information I have seen or heard about in the MDIFW’s draft moose management plan, they are considering using one Wildlife Management District (WMD) to seriously reduce the population of moose in order to see if this reduction will get rid of or effectively ease the presence of winter ticks. This might be a good idea, especially since this department seems only to think the ticks are related to nothing other than global warming.

My fear in creating these draft plans is that decisions are going to be made about the welfare of the moose, deer, bear, turkeys, etc., based on economic idealism and pressure from social groups and demands, including the fake “Wildlife Watchers.” This is a giant loss for wildlife.

Queer isn’t it that what once was a convenient means of “viewing” wildlife, is to visit a marsh or some other location where those wildlife live on a regular basis. If anyone was interested in spotting wildlife other than from a platform, they had to get off the fat rear ends and get into the woods to find those creatures. But not anymore. Somehow this lazy, perverse society demands to see every species of animal from their living room window or their climate controlled automobiles. If those animals aren’t there, they claim hunters killed them all and demand more of them. Disgusting as this may seem, it’s even more disgusting that fish and game managers are dictated to by lawmakers to abandon, to some degree, science in exchange for enabling more social demands. This is absurd.

MDIFW is asking for more money to further study moose. It is only reasonable to be skeptical about this demand as all too often we see governments throwing money after bad. However, giving them money without specific guidelines in how that money should be used, is tossing the money into the toilet. Money must come with specific goals and specific results.

If lawmakers believe that managing the Northwoods for moose and to hell with deer, is in the best interest of the people and the animals, then I would like to see some fast, hard data that shows at what level the economy increases due to moose watching versus the loss of deer hunting. I want also to see some serious research into the so-perceived mystery of winter ticks and moose. It seems to be the number one topic so why isn’t it being researched?

This is all crazy! As I have said, it seems that all of a sudden game managers are incapable of doing their jobs because they HAVE to find a balance between social demands and sound scientific management.

NONSENSE!

Share

Maine’s Moose Biologist: Epiphany or Slip of the Tongue?

*Editor’s Note* – Actually, I didn’t think I would live long enough to read the below quip found in the Bangor Daily News. I spent about five minutes checking myself, and actually walked outside, found a stranger walking down the street and asked them if they thought I was dead. She didn’t think so.

But, I am curious. Is this statement an epiphany or a slip of the tongue? For surely no modern day wildlife biologists would actually resort to a basic fundamental in understanding animal management, i.e. that when you crowd together too many of any animal, the result is disease. Maybe I got the man all wrong. Maybe under all that “we must manage wildlife according to social demands,” he retains a bit of old fashioned “codgerism.” Therefore, I may have convinced myself his statement is a slip of the tongue.

Not that I think this will in anyway assist in keeping the current moose study going in a direction of the normal scientific process and not be kidnapped by global warming, it does provide just a glimmer of hope.

“And while the moose herd in the western part of the state is struggling to deal with the effect of winter ticks, Kantar pointed out that the problem was likely influenced the abundance of moose on the landscape to begin with.

“We know that the more moose that you have over time, has likely created a scenario where winter ticks have done really well,” Kantar said.  “Our winter tick population has grown with our moose population through the decades. This is not a one-year thing where all of a sudden, one year, something’s happened.””<<<Read More>>>

Question for readers: Is the picture shown below:

A. The result of too many winter ticks?

B. The result of global warming?

C. The result of a hybrid mix due to too many moose?

D. Photoshopping?

E. I don’t get it?

cowmoose

Share

Moose: And Just What Is That Legacy We Are Leaving Our Grandchildren?

Yesterday I was reading George Smith’s article about how, according to a representative of the New Hampshire fish and game department, in 20 years the moose will all be gone. Smith quotes the N.H. official as saying, “…in less than 20 years moose will be gone from this state save for a remnant population. How sad of a legacy we are leaving our grandchildren.” So, what’s the legacy?

I’m guessing from what I’ve read in the past from this N.H. official and from Mr. Smith, that their idea of the legacy we are leaving our grandchildren is that global warming is going to kill us all – moose first I guess.

I might be inclined to support a statement that in less than 20 years moose will be all but extirpated if wildlife scientists cannot find their way clear of this nonsense about global warming. Changing the title of their religion to Climate Change, changes nothing. I doubt that any of these environmentalist “True Believers” know and understand the difference between weather and climate.

Out of one corner of their delusional minds they speak of how severe winters are killing off our wildlife. Next up, sometimes in the same breath, we are told how global warming is killing our wildlife. When you ask these clowns how both severe winters and global warming can coexist, they tell us that one of the symptoms of global warming is changes in weather patterns. One should be so ignorantly fickle. And how convenient. This rates right up there with the dog ate my homework.

If Climate Change was real, and if Maine’s moose, deer and Aunt Mildred are all being negatively affected by a warming climate, then, according to their own VooDoo science, it just can’t be. According to Maine environmental-type wildlife biologists, white-tailed deer in Maine struggle to survive because they are on the fringe of the animal’s northern most range. And, yes, we are also told, that because of that northern fringe, severe winters regularly kill off the deer. If we were suffering from a warming climate, deer should be, generally speaking, growing in numbers in Maine due to fewer and less severe winters. Are they? And the moose would be migrating north. Are they? And would the moose migrate north in such a short span of time that we have seen the moose decline in Maine so drastically in only a matter of perhaps a half-dozen years? The answers to any of these questions becomes one of convenience, i.e. whatever fits the narrative for the moment.

If any legacy is to be left behind as it pertains to moose, it will be that Romance Biology and VooDoo Science fell in love with the money-making nonsense of global warming and they failed to apply the real scientific process as a way to find out what’s really killing some animals. We can only hope this won’t happen. I’m not holding my breath though.

For readers, just yesterday I provided you a brief commentary and a link to an article where New Brunswick, Canada and Maine are sharing in another study of collaring deer to see what’s killing them. I wanted to know when will scientists begin to look at something other than global warming? I also wanted to know when, pertaining to the moose, scientists will study the winter tick? I think I know the answer.

I find this not unlike a perceived social issue in this country about guns. All the debate is about getting rid of guns. But is the problem guns or should we be asking ourselves what causes a person to want to kill another person?

Generally speaking, our wildlife scientists blame everything on global warming. Across this country, moose populations, we are told, are dwindling. The only reason given? Global Warming. From out of the depths of trodden-under science, finally we begin to hear the rumblings and grumblings that global warming is having an effect on moose but that large predators, i.e. the gray wolf and bears are the main culprits. Perhaps there’s hope.

In northern New England there appears to be a consensus growing that the winter tick is the culprit that’s having the greatest negative effect on the moose. However, the same consensus ignorantly just keep repeating the nonsense that the growth in winter ticks is cause by, you guessed it, global warming.

For those who have been regulars readers to this website, you know that I have written extensively about the winter tick and provided you with links to the scant few studies that exist about the winter tick. What bothers me most about continually reading that global warming causes the ticks to grow in number, is that it is not supported in any of the studies I have found and read about. This tick has a range that covers just about all of North America. It is a hardy parasite that is not readily effected by warm and cold. And yet, all we hear is how global warming is the problem. There has never existed, that I am aware of, any thought from these biologists as to what effect too large a population of moose has on the winter tick. NOPE! It’s always and forever, GLOBAL WARMING.

The legacy may well be that because today’s wildlife biologists, spoon-fed Romance Biology, failed to study the winter tick, instead of spending a few hundred thousands of dollars collaring and counting dead moose, in less than 20 years the moose will be gone.

Stop blaming climate change, as though it was some new phenomenon that exists because man exists. The climate is always changing. The weather is always changing. Time to move on.

And as always, I’ll provide you a way out:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share