April 7, 2020

Wyoming: Wolf Free Zone and Game Populations Disappearing

Below are some interesting charts, graphs, and data about wolves and the effects they are having on Wyoming’s big game populations of moose, elk, and deer. The data comes from the Wyoming Game and Fish.

Somehow, throughout the criminal activities of Government and rogue non governmental groups to illegally force gray wolves onto the landscape of the Northern Rocky Mountains and the Greater Yellowstone Region, Wyoming was able, through legal channels, to designate the majority of the geographic region of the state as “Wolf Free.” This designation means that in these zones wolves can essentially be killed at any time by any means and without a license.

The data that is compiled comes from those areas where controlling of wolves as a predator, is strictly regulated by state and federal governments. These zones where wolves are protected, at least to some degree, regardless of the lies being perpetuated by government agencies, non government agencies, and the media, are experiencing devastating losses to moose, elk, and deer. The insanity persists that people be forced to live in scarcity to protect a large predator that has no good purpose in people-settled lanscapes.

The lies within the rigged Beast System continue…unchecked.

Share

Is What We Are Being Told About Habitat Really True?

One has to wonder. I was reading this morning about issues with feeding whitetail deer in Maine. George Smith, outdoor writer, shares with his readers that: “A SAM [Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine] survey of our members in 2018 revealed that 26% had fed deer sometime during the previous 3 winters. That equates to about 2,000 feeding sites, just among SAM members!” This information, as I understand it, does not include data from food plots, i.e. those places around where people plant crops specifically to feed deer.

So, let’s say there are about 2,000 feeding sites across Maine each winter season. We don’t know the location of all these feeding stations and/or the ones that aren’t included in the SAM survey report. (Is it reasonable to think that there are more deer feeding sites from people who are NOT members of SAM?) Consider that there is a possibility that if there are feeding stations near each other, some feed lots are sharing the feeding of the same deer.

Regardless, can you guess what the average number of deer that are being fed per feed site? If I were to take a wild guess, I’ve seen some where at peak feeding time, it appears as many as 100 deer are chowing down. Back yard feed sites, might get around a dozen, maybe more and maybe less.

For argument sake, let’s say each of the 2,000 + deer feeding sites nourishes 30 deer (I think that might be conservative so bear with me). That would mean, excluding some deer that might move between two or more feeding sites, perhaps 60,000 deer are receiving supplemental nourishment they wouldn’t get if they were on their own.

If the 60,000+ deer receiving supplemental nourishment (and once again, this does not include summer food plots and those feed stations that SAM isn’t aware of) comprise at least one quarter, and perhaps one half, of the statewide deer population, and not having any scientific data on geographic locations, what is this activity doing to the survival and promotion of healthier deer throughout the state?

We are repeatedly told that during the harshest parts of the winter months, deer browse on stuff that is of little or no value as far as nutrition goes. The fiber ingested more or less fills an empty stomach. So, ask yourself whether or not the deer that are being fed are better nourished. If so, what does that mean for the long term for deer?

If you’ve ever watched deer interact at a feed station, you will notice that the bigger deer bully the smaller deer, such that the smaller, and less aggressive deer, get what’s left over. Biologists and others have stated that feed plots aren’t “fair” because of this natural dynamic. Shouldn’t we consider that whatever “scraps” the runts get is certainly more than they would get without food sites?

Have you ever been to a deer wintering area and observed the realities taking place there? One quite obvious dynamic is the neat trimming that takes place of the bows of trees in the lowest parts of the canopy. As winter progresses and the snow level rises, so too does the trim line at the lower parts of the trees. When the trees have all been trimmed that can more or less easily be reached, deer begin to stand up on the hind legs in order to reach the tree bows. This means the bigger (taller) deer get food and the runts don’t. According to the misguided thinking of some, this natural event wouldn’t be “fair” either.

What does happen then with a quarter, or more, of the total deer population in Maine getting “unnatural” food? Do these deer receive the necessary energy to help them survive those long harsh winters better? If so, to what extent is the increased survival affecting the mortality rate of the deer herd? Does this increased nutrition cause the fawn survival rate to go up? If so, how much? Is it skewing natural dynamics? Does this event send those biological triggers, often conveniently talked up by animal rights groups and predator advocates, that “cause” deer to produce more as part of their reproductive rates?

There are many things to be considered with this extent of deer feeding. Probably we are left with more questions than answer. However, when we consider what we are being told about habitat and deer mortality rates etc., we might be looking at two different consequences of deer feeding. One consequence might be that we are seeing more deer added each year to the total deer population, or perhaps at least in those areas where deer feeding is more concentrated. Are we? Have we received any word from the biologists in charge of deer management that the population is actually growing? Maybe word from observations from those who feed deer can tell us if they are feeding more deer each year. I would think they ought to know. Don’t they count them? Does the harvest data indicate that the population of deer might be going up?

If none of this is actually happening, then it would be sensible to ask just what the condition of the deer herd would be without any supplemental feeding.

If you think about all these things, then one has to wonder if law makers and game managers are making too big a deal out of feeding deer. Is it really hurting in any way? Yes, there are concerns over spreading of disease, but is there an equitable concern for disease and virus spread throughout the landscape of all wildlife? If Chronic Wasting Disease was found in Maine, I’m positive the state would immediately implement all necessary actions to curb the spread. Supplemental feeding isn’t going to cause CWD, but it might contribute to spreading the disease.

We should probably ask ourselves how significant changes in feed and habitat, quality and quantity, are to the management of our wildlife. Is it like we are being told?

I think supplemental feeding of at least one quarter of the total deer herd is significant. I also believe this activity has contributed to the survival and reproduction of more deer. With that said, what would the state of the deer herd be today without the years of supplemental feeding?

Share

Maine 2019 Deer Harvest With Big Buck Data

Below you will find a chart that shows the deer harvest in Maine since 1999. The chart gives readers comparisons based on the full data available since 2000, as a percentage or departure from data of 2000. In addition, the information provided gives the number of 200 lb+ bucks that were reported to the Maine Sportsman magazine. One thing such a comparison gives us is a peek into the big buck trends taking place across the state.

Thank you goes out to my good friend who does the work and compiles the chart.

Maine Deer Harvest Comparison Chart – 1999 – 2019
Share

Trickle-Down Nonsense of Moose Tick Infestations

This morning I was rereading a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) blog post about the department’s ongoing moose survival study. There is little hope that ever in my lifetime we will rid ourselves of the ignorant brainwashing that has caused a new religion of Climate Change Worship. I am left with the firm understanding that, beyond politics, the science of climate change, has been replaced with the Scientism of utter nonsense. There is no hope. Regardless of whatever reality is, whether natural or man-made, the inability to understand simple concepts has been bred out of this post-normal society. Such is the case within our wildlife management departments worldwide. All that is known is we’re all gonna die from Climate Change.

There’s nothing I can say or do that is going to have any influence on the epidemic that has overtaken this dystopian totalitarian existence.

But maybe there is hope to some degree…or not. The blog post of which I linked to above reads: “This increase in winter tick is a consequence of the changing climate, resulting in milder winters and creating a greater opportunity for tick survival.”

One of the problems with making this statement is that there are not enough studies done on winter ticks to be able to fully understand the survival rates and conditions. While fish and wildlife biologists, along with millions of climate change religious fanatics, are nothing more than echo chambers of what he said-she said, hand selected information, most of which is based on scientism (outcome based) and void of real science (truth), is used to prop up narratives and is rooted in unprovable propaganda.

Currently, there are just as many, perhaps even more, pieces of scholarship that tell us that “climate” really is not a strong enough factor to consider in tick survival. (But, as I say, Don’t go look!)

The echo chambers constantly repeat the tale that harsh winters (this from the standpoint of we don’t have harsh winters anymore, which is bunkum) will kill off ticks that cause mortality in moose. Harsh winters have come and gone and returned again, the same way they always have. Those who choose to believe false data about temperature changes, wrongly believe that normal cold winters (if we still had them, wink-wink) would take care of the tick problem. They fail to understand tick mortality and the relationship to temperatures and climate, even suggesting they don’t really understand the life cycle of the moose tick.

Consider the following…if at all possible. If Climate Change is a real factor (There is natural climate change. There is NOT man-caused climate change…at least not in the way it is being sold to the public.) and if Maine is indicative of the rest of the world, it has seen a minuscule increase in average year round temperature (perhaps a half a degree) in the past few decades, then which scenario do you think would have the most influence on tick proliferation and mortality – a temperature change of half a degree over several decades, or an increase in moose populations, directly proportional to the increase in ticks, of say 50% or more over the same period of time?

Because the political persuasion of Climate Change Religion has so poisoned the minds of good men, perhaps then the only hope will be some changes made to moose management that is secondary, or worse, to counter the invasion of Scientism.

If we read further on at the MDIFW blog, we can read the following: “With parasites and disease, higher moose population leads to greater chance of transfer, ultimately causing more death. Since calves have two critical periods in their lives to ensure survival, it is of high priority for MDIFW to find ways to help improve moose health. For this reason, the agency is considering methods of selectively lowering the moose population in certain parts of the state to decrease the chance for parasite and disease transfer, eventually leading to a healthier and higher quality population.”

What is extremely interesting in this approach is that this is something I have been harping at for years now, i.e. that we should recognize those factors that influence wildlife that we have no ability to control and focus on those things that we can. DUH!

As much as anyone wants to harp on Climate Change, there’s nothing we can do about it, short of an all out war on the worlds’ human population. Some believe a tax on carbon will do the job. I might suggest that first we take a look at the historic raping of the public of taxes for such things as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Education, etc. and do an honest assessment as to the status of those billion dollar (in taxes) programs and the yield on investment. Yeah, I thought so.

So, we can’t change the climate…no, really, we CANNOT change the climate. We don’t even understand it or what influences it. How are we ever going to change it? Or do we want to?

A warming climate has historically always been followed by periods of prosperity, growth, ample food supplies, etc. Carbon dioxide is an important and necessary component to our own health and prosperity.

If the climate in Maine is changing so much, as we are led to believe, that moose ticks are growing by the trillions as a result, then it only makes sense, as we are also told, that the southern fringe of natural moose habitat would be migrating north, and along with it the northern fringe of the whitetail deer population would be expanding north along with the retreating moose.

We know that the opposite is true. Maine’s deer population is struggling to survive north of say the East and West highway of U.S. Route 2. We also know that moose are expanding into southern regions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. This is all opposing the theories of Climate Change and the false claim that moose ticks are increasing due to Climate Change.

It is of some relief to see that at least in Maine, moose biologists are willing to attempt something beyond crying over Climate Change to improve the health of the moose herd. With open minds and a return to real wildlife science, biologists will soon learn, as others have before them, that the ONLY way to mitigate moose ticks is to reduce the population.

Let’s get on with it and put an end to this needless suffering.

Photo by Albert Ladd

Share

Buy Em Guns, Send Them to Hunt, and Then What?

I was reading Bob Humphrey’s recent article about making this year “The Year of the Hunter.” As I have come to expect, Bob Humphrey, one of Maine’s better outdoor writers, is always full of words that are constructive and positive, something perhaps I should take a lesson in. However, I am too strong a realist to be drawn so far away that I would find myself showing up to a birthday party that has no balloons, ice cream, and a cake.

Mr. Humphrey laments of the continuing decline in hunter participation. We tend to superficially putter along with suggestions of how to increase hunter participation, with perhaps not putting enough focus on the balloons and the birthday cake.

All of the writer’s suggestions make a lot of sense: recruitment, mentorship, apprenticeship licenses, involvement in “R3 Program” (recruit, retain, reactivate), controlling social media, improved landowner relationships, joining deer conservation and advocacy groups, and basically speaking out about the positive aspects of hunting.

While Humphrey sort of casually mentions, “Since 1988, the Quality Deer Management Association has promoted “sustainable, high-quality deer populations, wildlife habitats and ethical hunting experiences through research, education, advocacy and hunter recruitment.”

There are many groups of all variety of make-up that “promote sustainable, high-quality deer populations,” but what does promote mean? Are these groups forming because state-funded government fish and game departments are incapable of sustaining high-quality deer populations? Don’t we need our fish and game departments to go beyond marketing a not-so-good product…with a straight face no doubt? Fish and game departments should be the leaders not the followers of advocacy groups.

All dressed up for the party, with invitation in hand, and all the supporting propaganda telling me what a great party this is going to be, arriving at the party and finding no cake and ice cream means I won’t be hanging around for long, and will become gun shy (sorry) to return again.

All states’ deer hunting problems are different. All states are suffering some degree of hunter loss. With a dwindling population of hunters (I would bet with continued hunter loss those retaining an interest are more serious about what they do and thus will seek out those places where they have the best chance a bagging a “trophy.”), competition becomes real and it is a no-brainer that if the party has no cake and ice cream, the interest will continue to decline and Maine is removed from consideration as a destination hunting ground and interest within the state continues to shrink.

Yes, there are other problems too that contribute to the lack of interest, but an unsustainable, poor-quality deer population makes all other “recruitment, retentions, reactivation” efforts a bit of a futile effort.

People in Maine are a bit dishonestly led to believe that the deer population is “healthy” and that while numbers may not be at peak levels, there are plenty of deer to go around. It is when we honestly examine where the deer are concentrated we realize the majority of geographic and huntable areas, have deer densities that make it, let’s say, a poor product that is very difficult to promote “retention, recruitment, and reactivation.”

Back in October, I commented on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) efforts at promoting “R3” by recruiting some greenhorns and sticking them in a ground blind in the middle of a game preserve. Oddly enough, from a state that is not exactly all in with “canned hunting” they use canned hunting in an attempt to recruit new hunters. The question I asked is why didn’t the MDIFW put them in places where the rest of us are forced to hunt? The answer is simple. Sitting in a blind for hours on end seeing nothing, is like going to a birthday party with no cake and ice cream. Are you getting my point here?

Not that we should give up all the efforts that Mr. Humphrey and others have suggested to recruit more hunters, but retention and reactivation is going to be a very big task to accomplish unless those huntable regions of Maine grow more deer.

So, the big and obvious question is how do we grow more deer in Maine’s huntable and deerless regions? Let’s first begin with what we shouldn’t do. We shouldn’t use terrible excuses, like Climate Change and claiming there’s just as many deer now as there used to be – there may be but they aren’t where they can be hunted. If a warming climate, the most favorite of all excuses, was real, then Maine deer regions to the north would be seeing deer growth as the winters become less severe and the forests change. The news is they are not.

We need to work even harder with landowners, even the big ones, to protect deer wintering areas. But large predators growing at unchecked rates is a real problem. While some efforts have been undertaken to reduce coyote/wolf populations, more effort needs to be done. We eat deer. We don’t eat coyotes…at least not yet.

At the same time, serious efforts need to be taken to cut the black bear population down to “healthy” levels – healthy for the bears and healthy for deer. Bears are killing fawns soon after the fawning season, seriously cutting into fawn recruitment, making sustainable deer populations impossible.

The Maine Legislature needs to stop dawdling and caving to special interest groups, like guides and outfitters, and do what is best for all game populations, not necessarily bank accounts.

Consider what has changed since deer populations in many parts of the state have dwindled. In those same regions, black bear populations are growing out of control, coyote/wolf numbers are at all time highs, and moose numbers remain strong. Why is it that all that can be seen is finding fault with the Climate?

I don’t know of any hunters who seriously want to see the Big Woods of northern Maine teeming with deer. However, an increase from 1-3 deer per square mile, to 2-5 deer per square mile or even 3-6 might make a huge difference in accomplishing the 3 “Rs.”

If Maine is going to push this recruitment, retention, and reactivation thing, let’s lay the groundwork first to make sure we got the cake and ice cream. It sure would make all that work a lot easier. Who knows, if Maine had a terrific deer product to market…if you build it they will come?

Share

Maine: Hunting Ethics and Hunting in Deer Yards

I read a very good article this morning written by Maine’s outdoor writer Bob Humphrey about issues with deer hunters being able to hunt deer in deer wintering habitat.

Often, as Mr. Humphrey points out, deer do not journey to their wintering areas until after the deer hunting season. In some cases, where winter seems to come early (where’s that Global Warming?), deer have begun to congregate in the yards before the end of the season, especially during the late-season muzzleloader hunt.

I have written about the effects of the late-season muzzleloader hunt, which appears to fall on mostly deaf ears. This article does not address the real concern with late hunts, regardless of whether those late hunts involve an early yarding up of deer.

It is accurate that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) manipulates seasons, bag limits, issuance of permits, etc. to control the deer population in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD). What is not known, because it is never discussed, is whether, in that consideration of manipulation tactics, the idea of deer harassment, which can cause a higher degree of mortality, is actually considered.

Even when winter doesn’t come early, the late-season muzzleloader hunt, causes added stress to an already stressed and weakened buck herd. The annual rut (mating season) has mostly concluded (there may be still some activity in some areas) by the end of the regular rifle season in most of Maine. The bucks can be quite worn out, having burned up stored fat supplies due to excessive “rutting” habits. With reduced fat supplies, bucks become vulnerable to the effects of severe winters.

If the deer have moved into yards early, that means conditions are such that harassment of any deer in a winter yard, places possible detrimental effects on any deer, especially a tired out buck who has been performing his duties.

When people begin discussing hunting ethics, attempting to link ethics to a decision as to whether or not certain hunting tactics should be legal or not, the discussion becomes a pitting of one person’s perspective against another. When the state makes laws prohibiting certain hunting tactics, it is no longer a matter of hunting ethics but that of legal ethics.

If the law allows hunting in deer wintering areas, whether a hunter chooses to hunt there should be decided by that individual’s preferences and perspectives. One would only hope that the deer managers are considering the mortality rates that can be attributed to late-season hunting in deer yards that is caused by the continued hunter effort and harassment, regardless of the degree of harassment.

Share

Ticks and Opossums: When You Really, Really, Really, Want to Believe

If you are a regular reader of this website, perhaps you saw the comment left by a contributing writer to this blog. It was about being made a fool of. This is what he sent for information: “

DEFINITIONS – WHAT IS BEING DONE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS and how they unknowingly and knowingly are in fact self destructing. Thus fools advocating for their own demise and followed by fools that believe their every word…

make a fool –

3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe

http://www.thefreedictionar…

Idiom.

make a fool of (out) of someone –

to make someone look foolish

http://idioms.thefreedictio…

dupe –

noun.

2. a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person

Verb (used with object).

3. to make a dupe of; deceive; delude; trick
—-

dupe –

noun.

2. a person who unwittingly serves as the tool of another person or power

3. ( transitive verb ) to deceive, esp by trickery; make a dupe or tool of; cheat; fool

http://dictionary.reference…

dupe –

( transitive verb ) to trick someone into believing something that is not true or into doing something that is stupid or illegal

To substantiate this definition, I also was sent a link to an online article, one of which after some further investigation, I discovered had been echoed in many places across Cyberspace and presented as factual information.

Here is the photo that accompanied the claim that this picture shows an opossum picking ticks off a deer’s face.

Included in nearly all of the repeated nonsense, was how incredibly important the opossum is in protecting us from Lyme disease – that famed Balance of Nature, etc..

There is some truth behind opossums and ticks that carry Lyme disease. Opossums like to eat ticks and they groom away and/or eat about any tick that gets on them, including the black-legged tick that carries Lyme disease.

Do these animals actually limit the spread of Lyme disease? Well, yes, but we really don’t know exactly how much. But this is not the point I’m trying to make.

The point is that in our post-normal society where we are always being “duped” and made fools of (we bring this all on ourselves due to our willful ignorance, laziness, and strong desire to belong to something, especially something that seems good – like environmentalism where Nature balances itself, etc.), when someone lays hands on a photo, like the one shown above, they drop to their knees in worship of the creation and all false beliefs that go along with it.

It’s an interesting photo, acclaimed to have been captured on a wildlife camera, but the idea that opossums perch themselves on a rock waiting for a passing deer so they can groom the ticks from the face or other parts of the deer, is about as absurd as wolves changing the courses of brooks and rivers.

A fool is “one who has been tricked or made to look ridiculous.” If you blindly believed what anyone told you about this picture, and/or passed it on, you are a fool and a dupe – “a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person.”

The world is loaded with probably as many fools and dupes as there are black-legged ticks. Don’t be a fool!!!

Share

Deer Hunting: When Bad Becomes the Normal

I was reading a Bangor Daily News article late last night and I read a couple of things that I thought I would like to comment on.

The tone of the article seemed to want to reflect a bit of braggadocio about how terrific the Maine deer harvest was this year and how it exceeded the last ten year average.

With it in mind that “statistics prove that statistics can prove anything,” with a few mirrors and a bit of smoke, comparing a deer harvest to the ten worst years ever in Maine’s deer hunting history, would make a slight increase in numbers appear much better than it really is.

The ten-year average deer harvest, from 2009-2018, is 22,709. In the news article, comparing this year’s harvest of 28,317 to this ten-year average, makes it appear as though the Maine woods are teeming with deer. As a matter of fact the article states that Maine’s head deer biologist seems to believe that, “…the high number of deer taken was a product of favorable weather and a thriving deer herd…” Compared to what? The worst of the worst, evidently.

If we were to examine the ten-year average from 1999-2008, we find an average deer harvest of 27,465, putting this year’s harvest at about the ten-year average of 1999-2008, which is still below what Maine hunters used to experience before social pressures dictated deer management.

By comparison, if we examine the best 20-year deer harvests, dating back to 1964, we find that average to be 33,693, with the highest harvest coming in 1968 at 41,080. Geez! That’s ONLY 50 years ago!!

It should be noted that the tenth highest deer harvest during that 50-year span happened last year – 2018 when the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife decided, for some unexplained reason, to issues the most “Any-Deer Permits” ever – in excess of 48,000 of them. Is it any wonder the harvest was so high?

Maine meanders along appeasing most of the hunters and fooling a few with their magical words about a “thriving” deer herd, but the truth is, all Maine needs is one or two more “severe” winters (coming at a time when the managers promote global warming) and the deer herd will be gone.

The new normal is to compare deer harvest to the absolute worst so reality is overlook. Maine’s deer herd is NOT “thriving.” It is sustaining in some regions and continuing to drop in others.

Wouldn’t it be much better for deer management if a bit of honesty and a focus on reality is what drives it?

Share

Fake Eastern Gray Wolves and Destruction of a Perfectly Good Wolf Species

In an article published on the Maine Wolf Coalition’s website over a year ago, it states that in 2006 a trapper killed a 107-lb “eastern/gray” wolf. The Maine Wolf Coalition (MWC), whose stated goal is the “recovery” of wolves in Maine (evidently they have no preference as to what species or hybridized mix of canine is “recovered”), improperly tells its readers that the animal, whose information they attribute to, was a male eastern and gray wolf mixture.

An honest assessment of the piece of “scholarship” (study) “suggests” that the animal in question, killed south of the St. Lawrence River, was some kind of, at least, partly domesticated hybrid of some canine that fed mostly on livestock and pets.

But here’s the real crime in all of this dog perversion and demands to “recover” wolves, not just in Maine, but anywhere. Those supporting “wolf recovery” are willing, either through ignorance of animal obsession, or both, especially dogs, to totally destroy the actual gray wolf species to get some kind of wild dog roaming about the woods. This makes no sense and presents a good case to support the claim of insanity.

It has already been proven, many times, that the wild canines that inhabit anywhere in the Lower United States, is not a pure wolf but some add-mixture of wild and domestic dogs/canines. Dog lovers then want these hybrid canines to be labeled some kind of wolf, i.e. red, Mexican, etc. So long as the criminals in Government continue to protect these disease-riddled hybrid dogs, they are contributing to the destruction of the actual species. Aren’t there laws that are supposed to prohibit such actions and behaviors?

According to an article found in Deer and Deer Hunting (online), wolves in certain counties of Wisconsin now are responsible for killing more deer than gun hunters do.

In Maine, the deer herd in most of the state, geographically speaking, is in terrible condition. Northern Maine is lucky to find deer numbers that approach 2 or 3 animals per square mile. Poor management of moose has caused North America’s largest ungulate to suffer from winter ticks due to uncontrolled growth in the population. Government officials will claim that moose and deer do not compete with each other but there is little explanation as to why, when there are lots of moose there are few deer.

Maine’s black bear population is out of control and the Legislature, in their incompetence and ignorance, refuse to do anything sensible about the problem. In the meantime, an overgrown population of bears is destroying the deer herd, along with packs of hybrid wild canines, deer have little chance. And, with all this, a group wants “wolves” recovered. NUTS!!!!

The insanity in all this is that groups like the Maine Wolf Coalition want what they call wolves “recovered” clearly at the expense of all else. If these groups cared about the real wolf, they would be looking at destroying and preventing the spread of these hybrid canines. But they are not. They just want some kind of dog they can call a wolf.

Among this insanity, people work feverishly to protect large predators, most of which are direct competitors with humans in the food chain. These predator protectors wrongfully make claim that people don’t need to hunt to eat. They obviously have never lived under conditions where people still need to hunt for food. Besides, even if people didn’t NEED to hunt for food, it is insanity to suggest protecting disease-spreading animals that directly remove food from the mouths of people. It’s as insane as supplementing gasoline by destroying a perfectly good food source.

Wolves have their place in wilderness settings. They do not belong in human-settled landscapes because of public safety, health, food competition, and the actual destruction of the wolf species.

In America there are so many domestic dogs…I mean we are talking millions and millions of them, with millions running unleashed and cross breeding with any other wild or semi-wild canine (dog). The result is a mongrel dog worth little to a society, a direct threat to wild canines – wolves and coyotes. To claim this hybrid mixture as worthy of protection, is insane; it is a knife to our own throats.

If Americans want wolves and coyotes, real ones, on their landscape, then domestic dogs need to be drastically reduced or serious penalties levied against anyone who allows their pet dogs to run free.

What do you think will happen?

Share

Is Muzzleloader Hunting Good or Bad?

What a terrible title for a post. Let me funnel the broadness of this topic down to a focused and relevant area of discussion.

Once again, someone in Maine has asked the question as to whether or not the two weeks of muzzleloader hunting for deer, after the end of the regular rifle season, is “good or bad.” From all accounts that I have read, where someone is attempting to place a “good or bad” perspective on this late-season event, pros and cons have surrounded topics such as whether the odds are better or worse, the so-perceived added challenge of having a single shot weapon to bring down a deer, weather conditions, a chance to hunt with fewer hunters, and occasionally whether or not it was worth hunting for bucks because of the weight they have lost due to the annual fall rut or mating season.

I think I am the only one who has ever brought up the subject of whether or not muzzleloader deer hunting the first two weeks of December is good or bad based on the condition of the deer herd and in particular that of the male species of the whitetail deer.

In Maine, human-caused harassment of deer begins in early September, with Expanded Archery Season, and winds down in mid-December at the conclusion of Muzzleloader Season. That’s three months worth of harassment. How does this contribute to the overall mortality of deer?

In regions where there are ample deer – Maine is not one of those regions – sometimes the struggle becomes how to get rid of too many deer. Where there are too many deer, topics like predator mortality and hunting pressure are almost never discussed. But, in a state, like Maine, where many regions are virtually void of deer, responsible management MUST include consideration for every factor that contributes to the mortality of deer regardless of how small such negative influences may be.

During the month of November in Maine, the whitetail deer undergoes the annual mating season. Not totally unlike that of the human animal, the male species goes bonkers chasing female deer that are in heat. Until a female deer conceives, it will remain in heat. Bucks will chase any deer that is in need of being bred.

During this rutting season, lasting as long as 2 or more weeks, depending on conditions, the male deer essentially stop eating while in pursuit. Much of the winter fat that was being stored leading up to the rut, is burned up. In states like Maine, where winters can be long and severe, all deer need as much stored fat in order to survive. Some are under the misconception that the male deer, being stronger and bigger, can easily survive these kinds of winters and the dangers lie with the fawns born that preceding Spring. A completely spent buck may not have the strength left to survive a long, hard winter.

The Maine regular rifle season generally ends the last Saturday in November. By this time, the rut has mostly concluded – there may be some stragglers – and, depending upon weather conditions, in some locations deer are heading into their wintering habitats, where eating is limited and activities reduced in order to conserve fat, energy, etc. for survival. Should we be harassing them?

Maine is one state that opts for a muzzleloader season for an additional two weeks after the regular rifle season. While the number of hunters who muzzleloader hunt is small in comparison to the rifle season, one should consider how much this added two weeks of harassment is compounding the overall mortality of the deer herd.

In areas where deer are running 2 – 5 deer per square mile, the loss of one or two deer due to this added harassment could be detrimental to the herd. Keep adding to this small mortality year after year and what becomes of the sustainability of a threatened deer herd?

I realize that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologists limit the Muzzleloader Season in some zones to one week, but even that one week can be costly. Isn’t there a better way?

It’s always an unpopular position to take among hunters to suggest limiting hunting opportunity, but one should ask why it is necessary to have a special interest hunt at this time of the season? I hunt with friends who use muzzleloaders throughout the rifle season. Is a special interest hunt really necessary?

I know the archery hunters will get angry if anyone suggests muzzleloading before the rifle season as it might interrupt their special interest seasons, but shouldn’t we, in Maine, be considering the condition and growth/preservation of the herd during a time when many parts of the state are struggling in attempts to grow a bigger herd?

If Maine had more deer than it knew what to do with, I doubt anyone would be having this kind of discussion, instead, talking about what to do with all the deer.

The impacts of the two-week Muzzleloader Season are probably minimal. However, the impact becomes greater within a diminished herd.

Share