April 7, 2020

Making Stuff Up, Shifts the Wildlife Management Paradigm

The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR), formerly known as the Wellington House, is, to put it bluntly so all can understand, a brainwashing institution whose sole purpose is: “…to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” I’m quite certain the majority of readers do not want to believe this and that’s alright. It doesn’t really matter one way or the other what you think about all this. TIHR does believe this and they are going about their business while we dither blindly.

A few years back, I wrote a piece all about the Wellington House, now the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. If interested in learning some of how and why the world has gotten to the point that everything is upside-down and makes little sense, click on the link above and have a good read. I will make a note at this juncture that most all of the information that I wrote about back then is factually true. Some aspects of the piece, I have since gained much knowledge about and would change. However, the concept and the lists of organizations that are readily contributing to the altering of the way you think (or lack thereof) and act, are accurate.

Carl Pope, a former executive director of the Sierra Club, once said, “…environmentalism is part of a broader progressive movement.” The Broader Progressive Movement has many agendas, one of which, goes along with the Tavistock’s stated mission: “…to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America.” It is no real secret that this movement intends to “gain new understanding and knowledge” (a stated goal of the Left’s Second Nature and the Aspen Institute) and to “shift the paradigm” as to how wildlife management is discussed and perceived. If you don’t understand what all of this means, it’s easy. They intend to “gain new understanding and knowledge,” i.e. make stuff up, and “shift the paradigm,” or force the lies down all of our throats.

To accomplish this, enough people must be duped into believing what they are being told. I often refer to these followers as useful idiots and/or “True Believers.” This task becomes easier the more dumbed down a society becomes; those incapable of independent and critical thinking.

Eric Hoffer, author of “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements,” writes: “All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach, and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and single hearted allegiance.

“All movements however different in doctrine and aspiration, draw their early adherence from the same types of humanity; they all appeal to the same types of minds. At first they come gently. With power they speak and act boldly.”

A close examination of exactly what Hoffer is describing is enough to blow the minds of the sane and rational, i.e. those with a brain left to think and to see.

If Environmentalism, which goes hand in hand with Animal Rights, is only a part of a broader promotion of the Progressive Movement, then it is only logical to conclude that things like wolf introduction, predator protection, balance of nature, Climate Change, and wildlife management in general are part of that movement in which “new understanding and knowledge” (lies) and a “paradigm shift” (forcing it down our throats) are all a part of the bigger movement.

Why is it necessary to make stuff up and then force everyone to see things differently? Does “truth” then become nothing more than one’s ideological narrative, because that, they have been convinced, is the “new knowledge and understanding?”

This illness is prevalent in everything…I mean EVERYTHING. Climate Change, as sold to the masses of True Believers, is an unprovable theory, and yet those claiming to be scientists, and have paid for a college degree that gives them the right to say so, practice their profession based on an unprovable theory.

Decades have been spent fine tuning the North American Model of Wildlife Management, and the Broader Progressive Movement is intent on destroying it; or in their own words, to promote their “new knowledge and understanding,” regardless of whether it is fact or fiction, and then force all others to accept their new religion.

State fish and wildlife departments are now 100% rife with Environmentalism. Most of what they do, to the few of us remaining, makes no sense as they muddle through confounded acts of what they believe to be science/biology that are strangled by Climate Change.

These departments are controlled by the non scientific strings of Environmentalism now disguised as “social demands.”

I could spend the day giving example after example of how, through the deliberate act of “to shape the moral, spiritual, cultural, political and economic decline of the United States of America,” Environmentalism, a broader progressive movement, but if you can’t see it and won’t see it, then you are, more than likely, a blind True Believer: one who has at first, “come gently” but now, “speak and act boldly.”

As part of this movement, you have been brainwashed. It began a long time ago, and you cannot see it. That’s all part of the program. I wonder if you are “ready to die” with “a proclivity for united action?”

This is a real pandemic…eventually it will get us all.

Share

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

Another Half-Million Dollar Wolf Scam

A few years ago I pulled the plug on wasting my time trying to fight a rigged corrupt government system that grows and perpetuates wolves across the landscape of America – a practice that runs contrary to anything that once resembled normalcy and sanity.

At the time I made my announcement, I did hint that I might, from time to time, shine the light on the continued fleecing of hunters and trappers, and tax payers in general, when it comes to gray, red, Mexican, and any other mixed breeds of hybrid, wild canine designed and released into the backyards of Americans in the Northern Rockies, the Southwest, Southeast, and Western Great Lakes regions to perpetuate scarcity.

I more or less keep up with what’s going on. I swallow back my regurgitation when I hear the word wolf, shake my head and head in the other direction. However, I’ll be the first to admit it when I can boldly and proudly write: I told you so.

The other day I was alerted that the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) was asking taxpayers to fork over more than $400,000 a year to count wolves in their state. Please go back a read that again.

You see it wasn’t enough that the state of Idaho, in gutless, silent acquiescence, allowed activists, mostly rogue quasi members of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to spread wolves throughout their state, they went so far as to arrange things so that the wolves would continue to proliferate only instead of the Federal Government criminals footing the bill, the state of Idaho had to cough up the money to perpetuate wolves and destroy their prized game herds, i.e. elk, deer, and moose. These sportsmen claimed a victory. How so? How are those elk tags going for you? When’s the last time anyone hunted moose?

I’ll get to the “I told you so.” During the process of watching the wolves grow to numbers ginormously exceeding the target number of “recovered” wolves (10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves), the state, with the help of a handful of criminal politicians (aren’t they all?) got the Feds to turn management of wolves over to the state. This, of course, came when wolves in Idaho numbered probably somewhere around 1,000 – who knows for sure? Management involved finding ways to bilk the sportsmen of dollars to fund management, while at the same time their game herds began to nose dive due to wolves slaughtering the choicest of the elk, deer, and moose.

Never fear, the state offered a solution – a “trophy” wolf hunt.

About this time, I railed on the IDFG, laughing in their face at their ignorance that a “trophy” wolf hunt was going to have any effect whatsoever on controlling wolf numbers. I said back then it wouldn’t have any effect and that in about 5-8 years the state would be trying to figure out how they were going to control wolves. They still haven’t figured it out and never will, I’m afraid.

I began writing a multi-part series on the historic challenges that faced countries, cultures, and tribes across the world in their attempts to rid their landscapes of undesired wolves. I later took the time and pieced the multi-part writings into one piece. I called it, “To Catch a Wolf.”

In October of 2014, and again in February of 2017, I published an article about trophy wolf hunts, addressing specifically the claim by ignorant wildlife managers and activists, that offering trophy wolf hunts was somehow going to cause elk, deer, and moose populations to plummet. No, you can’t make this stuff up.

If you are interested in facts about wolves and some of what has transpired that has gotten Idaho to the point they are at now – dwindling game herds and anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 wolves and god knows how many breeding pairs – please take the time to read the links I’ve provided above.

In the meantime, it appears that citizens of Idaho are about to get shafted once again. They are being asked to supply the inept fish and game department $408,000 a year so they can count wolves. What for?

Mind you, we just learned that the same IDFG used $120,000 to kill elk that the department say are destroying ranchers’ crops. Not only is this fascist regime not giving hunters an opportunity to reduce elk populations in regions the state claims need it, but they are charging the sportsmen so the department can do it themselves or pay others to do it, while donating the meat to food banks. How big of them!

There’s a couple of sayings that come to mind here. One of them goes something like “Burn me once, shame on you. Burn my twice, shame on me.” But then again, perhaps we are well beyond burning twice. I think we’ve reached the point where insanity has crept in and taken over.

I was livid when sportsmen, wolf control activists, IDFG, and politicians agreed to take over management and charge the taxpayers and sportsmen for that privilege. Thanks a lot! More money and more wolves. That worked out real well.

If I was an Idaho citizen, I would place a big fat demand on any notion of providing nearly a half-million dollars to IDFG to count wolves. Here’s the demand.

Presently, depending on which lie you want to believe, there are from 1,000 to 1,500 wolves in Idaho. I don’t know how many breeding pairs. I don’t care how many breeding pairs. There are plain and simple too damned many wolves….period!

When the criminals illegally dumped the wolves on Idaho, they were promised that when there were 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolves, the species would be considered recovered and the state could take over managing wolves so long as they met that requirement. How did that work out for the victims? I thought so.

If the IDFG wants $408,000 to count wolves, give them the money with the understanding that by counting them and knowing where all the wolves are, they can then systematically kill enough wolves, geographically laid out to maintain a certain density and lower the total wolf population back down to 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves. Anything short of that, IDFG can go pound sand.

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

Deer Yards and Recreational Trails

Note: The below article has been submitted to the Bethel Citizen, a local newsprint publication and subsidiary of the Lewiston Sun Journal (Sun Media Group). It is intended as an open letter to the State of Maine, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Legislature, and any and all groups that develop land and in particular recreational trails.

Maine’s Trails Need Consideration for Wildlife

Open Air with Tom Remington

The Bethel, Maine area has become one of the fastest growing areas when it comes to the use and development of recreational trails. With little or no guidelines to develop, expand, or limit use, perhaps now is a better time than later to closely examine the effects of increased use by people and pets on trails throughout the year.

Trails for recreation are a great thing. As cultural demands change, I have watched as old logging roads, railroad beds, footpaths, hiking trails, snowmobile and ATV trails, etc., have been upgraded and are maintained for increased traffic far beyond foot traffic alone. The Western Maine area, which includes Bethel, at present has the most recreational trails available than at any other time in history.

With the development of paths, capable of moving more and different forms of recreation to greater distances, in less time, with manual and motorized transportation devices, with this come direct threats to our wildlife. We don’t always think about how our presence and activities can negatively effect habitat.

If we take a look at the whitetail deer population and how their biological cycles go allowing them to survive long winters in Maine, then perhaps we can see a definite need for considerations in locating trails, size of trails, and intended uses.

During the winter months, the whitetail deer in Maine, move into what our biologists at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) call Deer Wintering Areas (DWA). Most don’t realize that the Bethel region is home to a few of these DWAs, with one that used to be one of the state’s largest located near the Bethel Airport and within land which is now part of the Bingham Forest Park.

When deer enter Deer Wintering Areas (typically at the end of November into mid-December depending on weather conditions), their metabolism begins to slow. This is a necessary and natural adaptation that allows deer to conserve energy needed to stay warm and survive. This approximate 100-day period, where deer eat very little and what they do consume is more to fill a void than provide nutrition, is an extremely critical time.

It is during these mid-winter days, that deer are at their most vulnerable stage of existence. Any disturbances within these DWAs can result in near immediate death.

I have written in the past about concerns that I have with DIFW offering late season deer hunting opportunities for concern that deer that have already begun to “yard up” will be unnecessarily stressed by the presence of hunters. I also have concerns about when and where people can “shed hunt” (search of antlers) because efforts can stress deer and other wildlife during critical times.

Biologists at DIFW repeatedly echo that the biggest obstacle in efforts to maintain and manage healthy levels of whitetail deer is destruction/loss of habitat.

With all of this in mind, it would seem but only reasonable and responsible that all efforts to seek advice and guidelines be sought from professionals BEFORE construction or expansion of recreational trails. This is far better than waiting for the strong arm of the “law” to come down on all of us.

It’s not just a trail. Consideration must be taken as to the location of a trail and just as important, what types of use are intended. For example, a small walking path through the middle of a DWA, while I would strongly urge that no trail be built going through any DWA, would seem less stressful on deer than motorized recreational devices that would frighten and cause deer to run away, using up valuable energy to stay alive. Any and all activity penetrating a DWA is undue deadly stress and can be easily prevented.

As trails are developed, upgraded, and advertised for use, with it comes increased use. This use always includes those who want to go outside on trails with their pets. A combination of people, noise, and ambitious dogs looking to bark at and chase (they are dogs after all) yarded up deer, can be catastrophic.

I would implore all who are looking to create and/or expand new or existing trails anywhere, first seek help from the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The DIFW has biologists who can help locate DWAs and advise on the best possible ways of getting where you would like your trials to go with the least chance of wildlife and ecosystem disturbances.

This is in no way intended to speak negatively against recreational trails, only to request that all trails be done in the best possible way for ALL.

Share

Another Wolf Advocates Falsehood

This falsehood is not verifiable by anyone foolish enough to believe it. It is simply what people want to believe. Nothing more. It is beneficial for the agencies promoting this falsehood because they want to sell elk tags. Not only that, they including their pseudo environmental friends all UNEP clones want to cover up the real damage they did to the renewable resource we used to enjoy when these elk population numbers were the reality every year for many years before the wolf was brought back and mismanaged.

The massive reduction in elk hunting opportunity’s as can be verified via the previous of wolves hunting elk regulations data versus the current hunting elk regulations data.

“In 1995, the elk population in Wyoming was 103,448, the wapiti population in Montana was 109,500, and the number of elk in Idaho was 112,333. Recently, the elk population in Wyoming was 104,800, the population in Montana 138,470 and total elk in Idaho was 116,800. In each of those states, hunter harvests are high.”—Those States lying game departments

Belief is the idiom enemy of knowing. So let’s define what believe is, believe; it’s a transistor it is to lend credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded. Persuaded means to be deceived of the truth of something upon the declaration of another or upon evidence furnished by reasons arguments and deductions of the mind or by any other circumstance other than personal knowledge. practical experience.. Belief is the enemy of knowing..

Belief v Knowledge
The unbridgeable divide between believe and know … the believers — simply would not consider or accept that believe and know are not synonymous, that there is a chasm between the two words …
Believe, although having some slim foundation in evidence, signifies something unprovable (or perhaps less provable), and thus less firmly based in evidence, than know, whose foundation is firmly based on the provable and demonstrable.

The wolf advocate who posts this false information along with various other aspects of falsehoods connected to their advocacy can believe this State Agency crap because they want to believe it. The truth is they don’t really know if those population numbers are the reality of elk in those States, or if there in fact is another reality about elk populations in those States..

But then we all know the old saying about a sucker being born every minute, which originated in the 1800s.. Well I’d say that has increased since that era to a sucker being born every second..

I live in Central Idaho.. I’ve witnessed the last 25 years of the wolf programme of Action in full living color.. Wolf Advocates are only bullshitting themselves..

Of course another myth these true believers are suckered by apparently is that public office holders in the game departments of the states and even the federal people such as the BLM, USFWS and USFS all live by a higher moral standard than the rest of this society thus cannot tell a lie, would not fabricate falsehoods for agency agenda that coincides with the UNEP Programme of REWILDING Action.. Which the UNEP tome that is being implemented itself in it’s entirety since 1995 to allegedly save the earth is also a lie..

Perhaps a sucker is born every half second…

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