August 20, 2019

SAM Director Needs “Blue Papering”

The executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine needs to have the new law he created, fostered, and now fully supports (LD 1811) put into action against him. He is mentally suspect and is a threat to tens of thousands of Maine residents who, because oh his new law, can quickly have their rights dashed from their hands, leaving many and their families unprotected from real criminals, all in the name of guessing that somebody might do something wrong based upon the biased, and often unprofessional perspectives of cops and quasi medical people. From my perspective, the director should have all his “weapons” temporarily confiscated until such time as a court can rush to judgement over what to do with him and his guns.

Part of the mental disorder afflicting the director is that he believes that “justice” can be served when someone decides another person MIGHT do something wrong based on a person’s perspective of whether or not another person matches their idealistic, “normal” behavior pattern and has the targeted individual put into “protective custody,” weapons confiscated, and put on ice for 14 days waiting for a judge to decide what to do. Think about how things are in this fascist/totalitarian insane asylum called the United States of America. What judge in his right mind (if there are any) is going to release any accused mental patient and restore him/her their “weapons?”

Director Trahan can paint as rosy a picture as he would like but it doesn’t remove the stark reality that his law, while I want to say is “unconstitutional,” blatantly goes against what has been practiced for many years in this country where a person is allowed presumption of innocence and is not taken into custody AND had their personal property confiscated because somebody has power to attempt to predict what a person might or might not do.

I’m going to go out on a small limb here and guess that at some point in David Trahan’s political past and as the current E.D. of SAM, has at one time or other stated that gun control laws only effect innocent, law-abiding citizens – that criminals will get guns no matter whether they are banned or not…etc. And yet, here he is creating and promoting laws designed to forecast a person’s actions, a clear violation of an infringement upon a lawful citizen.

It has been historically stated that as long as any government, and/or those who participate in government, can keep the masses living in fear, they can control them with any laws designed to strip them of any granted or presumed rights of freedom.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

What is most tragic is when, due to ignorance and fear of reprisals, heads of sportsmen groups abandon their own rights for a bit of trumped up false security. Governments by themselves can create enough destruction of a person’s rights, we certainly should not have people like David Trahan gunning for (Excuse the expression. You might find it offensive.) laws that not only destroys our Second Amendment freedoms to keep and bear arms but also places in the hands of fascists and totalitarians the power to decide what another law-abiding American might or might not do because they might not fit the mold of what is perceived as sanity in a world gone insane.

Now that’s insanity.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it here – Trahan should step down as his interests are not in line with Maine’s outdoor sportsmen. He has become a serious liability to all gun owners across America and those who believe in the unquestioned right to keep and bear arms.

Share

Coyote Behavior: When All You Know is Farley Mowat’s Book of Mythology

Yesterday I was reading an article of utter nonsense published in a small Maine town newspaper about coyote behavior. Of course the article was all about the love of the nasty, diseased animal and the call for its protection “because it is an important necessity for a healthy ecosystem.” Unfortunately the writer appears to have gotten 100% of their education from the proven and admitted make believe of Farley Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf.

Mowat laced his book of fiction with make believe nonsense about how wolves and coyotes only eat mice and other small rodents. The author of the Maine piece tells the same fairy tale about Maine’s coyotes: “To clarify, coyotes primarily feed on mice and other rodents…” The myth if further perpetuated by stating: “While coyotes do occasionally eat fawns and sick deer…”

Coyotes are basically garbage collectors that will eat anything…and by that I mean anything. When hungry enough, they will eat mud in order to stop the hunger in their guts. But this author obviously doesn’t get around much. Coyotes in Maine are a mixed hybrid animal, a cross breeding of an invasive coyote, wolf, and domestic dog. Because of this, the wild canine in the Maine woods is not like a typical coyote. Maine’s coyotes feed on deer, yes, adult deer too, in regular fashion. To state that coyotes feed primarily on mice and other small rodents is patently false.

The purpose of the author making this statement is to claim that because coyotes eat mice, we need to protect them because mice are what carry the ticks that cause and spread Lyme disease.

There’s a problem with that scenario. If anyone does any honest and complete research on the behavior of coyotes and the results of their behavior, they would know that the meal of the Maine coyote hybrid includes such animals as foxes and other canines and felines that truly do feed on the mice that perpetuate Lyme. The more coyotes, the fewer foxes and thus, because honestly coyotes don’t primarily feed on mice and small rodents, having more coyotes results in fewer animals that do kill the mice and thus the possibility exists that the prevalence of Lyme grows.

It should also be noted that while some choose to believe that the coyote makes for a healthier ecosystem, the reality is far from healthy. It has been proven that coyotes carry as many as 50 different diseases and viruses. Maine also has detected the presence of “lung worm” in moose. Lung worm, in this case Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) is the result of the presence of wild canines. E.g. can be contracted by humans and can be deadly. Wild ungulates, such as deer and moose, pick up the disease by grazing around coyote scat where the tiny infectious spores are found. These spores are highly viable and thus the increase in the spread of the disease. In short, the more coyotes roaming the countryside, the higher the threat of disease. E.g. is not a direct killer of deer and moose (livestock also) but restricts their ability to escape large predators because of cysts that can grow on lungs and other internal organs.

The author points an accusatory finger at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for lying about its “responsible and science-based stewardship” when it comes to the management and control of coyotes. I find is amazing that simply because a person does not agree with the “responsible and science-based stewardship” of the MDIFW (in other words the department may not be all in with complete animal protection and natural wildlife management), they are labeled irresponsible and that their practices aren’t science-based. In fact, regardless of the fact that MDIFW spends far too much time trying to appease the social demands of lunatics who think coyotes will stop Lyme disease, the department’s efforts in selective coyote control and the allowing of coyote hunting derbies, while perhaps not a favorite tool for this necessary control, it is something that must be done in order to be “responsible and science-based” in the care and management of other wildlife species.

No matter how much anyone wants to read and believe Farley Mowat’s nonsense, it doesn’t change reality. Nature does not regulate itself in the Nirvanic way the uninformed want to believe. The author states that if we would leave the coyote along it would regulate itself. Obviously, the author has never seen the predator pits of death, destruction, and scarcity that predator protection causes.

If we want to enjoy the wildlife and its abundance, real responsible and science-based management and control is necessary.

Share

USDA Distributes Oral Rabies Vaccine for Wildlife in Northeast Maine

07/29/2019 06:14 AM EDT

AUGUSTA –Oral rabies vaccine (ORV) baits will be distributed in northeastern Maine beginning on or about August 3 through August 7 as part of ongoing, cooperative rabies control efforts aimed at reducing the incidence of raccoon rabies.

The distribution of ORV baits has occurred annually since 2003.

Wildlife Services, a program within the U.S Department of Agriculture’s Plant Health Inspection Service, will distribute the ORV baits in cooperation with the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Maine CDC) and the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. Approximately 351,000 ORV baits targeting raccoons will be distributed by air and ground over a 2,405-square-mile area. The eastern portion of the area will include Mars Hill and Houlton and reach as far south as Weston; the area will extend west covering areas including Oxbow, Patten, and Stacyville.

The vaccine packets will be distributed by airplanes in rural, wooded areas. Personnel from Wildlife Services will distribute vaccine baits from vehicles in the more populated areas.

Since 2003, Wildlife Services has worked to eliminate raccoon rabies from northern Maine because the virus poses a threat to human and animal health. Wildlife Services also collaborates with Canadian officials in New Brunswick and Quebec to reduce the presence of rabies across Maine and Canada.

As of July 23, 2019, 49 animals have tested positive for rabies this year in 12 of Maine’s 16 counties, including bats, raccoons, striped skunks, gray foxes, and red foxes. Occasional animal rabies cases have occurred in southeastern parts of Aroostook County in the last several years.

Rabies is a viral disease that infects the nervous system of humans and other mammals. It is transmitted primarily through a bite from an infected animal. Rabies is fatal once symptoms are present, although timely post-exposure treatment is effective in preventing the disease in humans.

To help protect yourself and your pet against rabies:

  • Keep your pet’s rabies vaccination current
  • Feed pets indoors
  • Keep garbage cans or other sources of food tightly secured
  • Do not feed, touch, or adopt wild animals and be cautious of stray dogs and cats
  • Do not relocate wildlife because this can spread rabies into new areas
  • Contact Wildlife Services at 1-866-487-3297 to report dead or suspicious-acting raccoons, skunks, foxes, or coyotes in northern Maine. Or call Maine CDC at 1-800-821-5821 for concerns about rabies anywhere in Maine.

ORV baits are coated with fishmeal and distributed in one-inch square cubes or two-inch plastic sachets. Humans and pets cannot get rabies from contact with the baits but should leave them undisturbed.

This vaccine has been shown to be safe in more than 60 species of animals, including domestic dogs and cats. Dogs that consume large numbers of baits may experience an upset stomach, but there are no known long-term health risks.

If contact with baits occurs, immediately rinse the area affected with warm water and soap. For photos of ORV baits, please visit 
www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/sets/72157623983143606/.

If you are bitten or scratched by an animal, wash the wound thoroughly with soap and water and contact your health care provider and Maine CDC at 1-800-821-5821.

Costs associated with detection, prevention and control of rabies exceed $300 million annually in the U.S., according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Approximately 90 percent of reported rabies cases in the U.S. occur in wildlife. As part of the Wildlife Services’ National Rabies Management Program, the ORV distribution program in Maine is part of a larger effort to prevent the westward spread of raccoon rabies by creating a barrier along the Appalachian Mountains from the Canadian border to Alabama.

For more information:

Share

Maine Bears and Wildlife Managers: Dither, Dither, Dither

It seems that when Rome burned, all the people managed to do was stand and watch. Wildlife managers and Maine legislators seem content to stand and watch, dithering away as the black bear population continues to grow and no real action taken to do much of anything about it.

One has to wonder if the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is incapable of doing their job due to fear of lawsuits and the pressures they receive from environmentalists, animal rights groups, animal protectionists, hunting haters, and haters in general.

We know that MDIFW is pretty much controlled by the outfitters and guides who tell the department how, when, and where the bear will be hunted. That needs to end.

For many years managers have spoken publicly of the need to do something about a rapidly growing bear population and since the beginning of those discussions, nothing has been done to limit the growth.

MDIFW claims that the only way they can get enough bears killed to somewhat limit the growth is by allowing baiting of bears. The act of baiting and hunters sitting over that bait to shoot and kill bears is not a very popular activity, especially among non hunters. According to the last two referendum votes to end bear baiting, the majority of voters indicated that they believe the MDIFW when they said it was a necessary tool to help control the bear population.

The Maine Legislature is also dithering on any actions suggested to battle the growing bear population and so the non action continues. Until when or what happens?

We now read that Maine has decided to put off another useless study in attempts to discover what affects baiting bears with human food has on the bears and in particular the rate of growth in population. I don’t really think some scientismist’s fake study, rooted in romance biology, and outcome-based is necessary. A simple examination of mathematical numbers would do the trick.

Most bears taken during the hunting season are taken over bait. Last season 3,486 bears were harvested. 2,484 were taken over bait. Officially, Maine claims there are 35,000 bears roaming about the woods. As those estimates go, there is no doubt that number is a low estimate. Guesses in excess of 40,000 would probably not be that far off. So, with approximately .6% of bears being fed human food, kick me if I’m wrong, I have serious doubts that feeding .6% of bears human food for one month out of the year is having any serious impact on the bears. Certainly we shouldn’t be wasting money on something so stupid just to appease the animal rights people.

With each passing season and more dithering taking place, combined with the reality that the bear harvest continues to fall below target goals and the number of hunters decreasing, one has to wonder what kinds of diseases will take over the bear population and do the job of reducing numbers the managers and legislators of this state can’t seem to get around to doing. In the meantime we up the risk of bear/human conflict pushing the envelope of public safety and health.

Is it so difficult to simply up the bag limit to two bears, excluding having to take one by trapping? Come on man!

Share

EnvironMENTALism: Stuck on Stupid

Just when you might be wondering if Environmentalists aren’t really that stupid, they tell us what they are doing to “Save the Planet” and everything in it, removing all doubt and revealing their absolute stupidity.

Just as stupid as the idea environmentalists have to destroy hundreds and thousands of acres of perfectly good forests, destroying the “wilderness” the ecofascists say they love and want to protect, and erecting wind turbines, is a new idea to map where animals become road pizza so that more acres of habitat for the animals can be destroyed all in the name of protecting animals.

Maine, partnering with environmental groups and those seeking profits in the name of environmentalism, has developed a mobile device app that will allow a “citizen scientist” to snap a picture and upload it to a website that will map the location of the kill to help saviors locate and protect animals in high kill areas.

Just as speed limit signs do absolutely nothing to slow down traffic, signs warning drivers to slow down for animals are no different. Instead, it is being suggested – and this is nothing new – that we dig up and destroy the habitat of animals that have chosen to live near to roadways in order to construct tunnels under the highways so the animals can get from one side of the highway to the other without dealing with speeding traffic. This makes little sense when examined with a bit of honesty.

One of the animals of concern, is the turtle. It would seem to me that a turtle doesn’t travel great distances due to the fact that it moves so slowly. The ecofascists claim that turtles might opt to lay their eggs on the sides of the road because of the sand and gravel that is found their. One might also believe that if that is factual then probably the turtle habitat is very close by. Therefore, why would not so bright people want to dig up and destroy the turtles’ habitat in order to provide tunnels under the highway?

It is one thing to be of concern for animals getting squished in the middle of the roads, but it is absolute nonsense to think destroying the habitat to save the habitat’s residents isn’t a very bright thing to do.

Those suggesting ways to save the planet and all that is in it, say that one tunnel does little good and that many tunnels need to be constructed. Maybe if we cut down all the forests and burned the remaining debris, then we could clearly see if any animals are coming near the highways. Then, perhaps motorists would have time to spot the animals and slow down. Or we could simply get rid of all roads that are built on the surface of the earth and erect bridges up and over everything.

Once this is resolved, one has to wonder how we are going to stop the billions of insects from being killed each day that are splattered all over the grills and headlights of speeding cars.

I was thinking perhaps it’s time to revive this?

The Environmentalist by Tom Remington – March 13, 2010

Thomas Sowell wrote: “People are all born ignorant but they are not born stupid. Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities.” He also said that one of the problems with education today is that what our educational institutions were created for, “to pass on to the next generation the knowledge, experience and culture of the generations that went before them….”, have become indoctrination factories in order to promote, “whatever notions, fashions or ideologies happen to be in vogue among today’s intelligentsia.”

Education is a good thing. It’s what we do with it and how we use it that makes us the individuals that we are. Indoctrination is not a good thing. It doesn’t allow a person to think and reason, thus making them lacking in common sense or the ability to decipher fact from faction, even when it is staring them in the face.

Bill Cosby, arguably one of the best comedians ever with the uncanny ability to turn real life, everyday events into gut busting humor, once did a sketch about using cocaine. He was explaining about cocaine and the effects it had on humans. When he asked why someone did coke, the reply was, “Because it enhances a person’s personality.” Cosby’s sharp retort was, “What if you’re an asshole?”

Does education do the same thing?

If what you start with is the south end of a north bound rhinoceros, then supplement it with education you just might end up dealing with a very large rhino with a bad case of hemorrhoids. Somewhere along the line people have come up with the outlandish notion that education makes you a better person and worse, better than others. A ski coach I had in high school, who remains a very dear friend, once told me you can’t make a good tossed salad if the only thing you have is lettuce. Educating a head of lettuce still will not give you a good tossed salad.

America has reached a point it seems that much of Urban America is at odds with Suburban America. I’m no psychologist so this is where the “educated” can exit the page because I might say things that aren’t found in one of their books.

An example of what I am referring to is the demand of city dwellers that country folk learn to live with wolves and/or other large predators. The mindset, perhaps enhanced through indoctrination, too often shows us that Ms. Greedy Greenie thinks it’s only right that Shane Shatkicker suffer financial losses, risk of personal injury and loss of private property due to government-sponsored wolf and predator protection. If this is so, then in reciprocity it should be equal comeuppance that Ms. Greedy Greenie learn to live with 60 or 70 truck loads of manure each year dumped on her front steps that’s laced with echinococcus granulosus tapeworms, the result of her cute and cuddly wolf.

If only it were that simple. It’s not really. You see there’s a certain breed of people that thinks as Ms. Greedy Greenie might and if we can better understand what makes her tick, well, we can at least have fun with it because understanding it isn’t going to cause Ms. Greenie to have an epiphany and start shooting and eating wolves.

For sake of this diatribe, I shall refer to all those who want to control my life as an environmentalist. It’s kind of a catch-all word. The only real defining characteristic of the environmentalist is the degree to which they are mired in their radicalism. Some got it so bad they flog themselves believing that trees are in pain. They want to be one with the tree. I got news for them. They didn’t need to flog themselves. Trees are stupid and so is this kind of radical environmentalist.

There are however, the soft core environmentalist. These are, more than likely, the same ones who used to or still do attend National Training Laboratory’s human interaction workshops. This is where you “get in touch with yourself” by touching and feeling the other person’s body. Advanced classes cover such deep subjects that go to the heart and soul of a human. They ask them questions like, “If you were an animal, what kind would you be?” The ultimate therapeutic pinnacle is to achieve complete warm and fuzzy semi-consciousness.

Of course the overwhelming majority of those able to become an environmentalist have done so through educational cultivation. Although still in the data retrieving stages, some scientists believe that there is a direct correlation to the degree in which an environmentalist becomes radicalized and the depth of their education/indoctrination.

History has taught us that the environmentalist is compelled from birth to play out a dual role as the preservationist and the reformer. It is not understood if this is genetics or due to the kind of music the fetus was subjected too while in the womb. Before we can understand the roles of preservationist and reformer, it should be explained that the environmentalists see themselves as the center of everything that is morally right. It actually goes beyond that to them believing that they are the center of the universe. I would never say this to an environmentalist’s face for fear of the demonizing I would receive because I couldn’t produce an academic study to support my claims but I kind of see them as the eye of a category five hurricane. Only they never leave the eye and cannot see the destruction going on around them.

One day an environmentalist wakes up and decides, unknowingly, not to take a shower. Whatever has happened to them they are unable to waste this precious resource. Soon it carries over to every aspect of their life, including thoughts of sterilization so as not to pollute the world with more children. As you might have guessed, there are upsides to environmentalism.

After coming to grips with the fact they are no longer human in this aspect, their quest becomes the total reformation of the planet. We all HAVE to think and eat and live as does the environmentalist.

Being the eye of the hurricane, the environmentalist has to be in control. Feelings are important, especially feeling good. Remember the warm and fuzzy semi-consciousness? I’m referring only to the selfish need of feeling good. If that comes at the cost of another person’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it won’t matter because the environmentalist believes themselves to be a Moirai.

What puzzles me however is that we know that environmentalists are self-centered and yet their world is a dichotomy of two quintessences – anthropocentricism and biocentricism. Anthropocentric thinking puts man managing our wildlife, our ecosystems and the environment around us. Biocentric thinking believes if left up to “nature” everything becomes another verse of Kumbaya. Being that an environmentalist is on the edge of the universe in all things, one would think they would simply have to control the environment directly. Not so! They want to let Mother Nature do it……….well, sort of. The secret is some believe they can control Mother Nature and others think they are Mother Nature. Odd isn’t it?

The environmentalist is the only one capable of setting all moral standards. You might think you have some morals of your own but trust me, they suck! Morally you, my friend, are no better than a rock, no smarter than a pig and have no more right to use your back yard to plant a garden than a herd of wild pigs just looking for a meal and a chance to be free. Why can’t I get Kumbaya out of my head?

That sage brush that infiltrates the lowlands of Idaho? Sorry, my friend. The environmentalist says you have no more rights than a pile of brush. You cannot bother the plants and animals because they have rights. I always figured if anything can sit down to my kitchen table and drink coffee, smoke a cigarette, fart and talk about football, they have rights.

The environmentalist must preserve everything. If they fail on their mission they simply cannot afford to pay their therapist bill to repair the psychological damage. Yes, preservation is of the utmost and to achieve that we must have diversity. Without diversity there is no stability and if we lose our stability there is nothing left for the children. The poor suffering children will be left with nothing. Cry me a river!

Diversity is often achieved through importation of species. To argue a species is not native is an effort in futility because the environmentalist, if not a “scientist” themselves, knows some that can create subspecies and all sorts of other goodies that all make wonderful sense to the minions of the environmental world.

The twisted thinking of the environmentalist leads them to conjecture that diversity is good, more diversity is better and the most diversity is the best because it makes our ecosystems, which aren’t really a system at all, stable. It’s kind of like reaching a climax where perceived stability achieves crescendo then we graduate from Kumbaya to a few verses of “The Greatest Love of All”. Unfortunately, Michael Jackson is dead.

To actualize diversity, stability, protection of animal’s and plant’s rights and to preserve for our children, may actually require the reduction of the human population. Nothing is beyond the realm of the environmentalist who is in it to win it. We could build one giant city the size of Texas and Oklahoma and move the entire world’s population there, leaving the rest of the world uninhabited but that wouldn’t be enough.

Referring back to the pending study about whether level of education is in direct proportion to the depth of environmental radicalism, if you are fortunate to be a biologist and an environmentalist, then you are the only one qualified to decide who lives and who dies. I think it was Daniel Janzen who once wrote that biologists were the only ones qualified to decide how anyone should use their land and who or what can live on it. Let’s get this straight because this confuses me. The seventh day God rested. So, it must have been somewhere around the 5th or 6th day that God got really tired. He created a biologist and told him he could create the landscape and decide things like where to put a lake, an ocean, a mountain and whether or not polar bears lived on ice or the jungle. Cool! The biologist must have been responsible for Algore. Or maybe I’m thinking engineer?

If you are a PhD, weeeellllllll! If you are a PhD environmentalist then you have told God to get out of your seat. Not only have you knighted the lowly one-degreed biologist to prop up Algore, a PhD scientist determines who is smart and who isn’t. This goes hand in hand with right and wrong, fact and fiction.

The PhD is all knowing and makes no mistakes. What they believe is truth. All other thoughts are wrong. Because of their indoctrination as an environmentalist, they lack common sense and actually believe tofu is one of the food groups.

But here’s the thing that environmentalists have done and they must be like really smart or something to do this. Environmentalists don’t have to live out in the country where they control the lives of those who do and make a mess of everything. It’s kind of like an out of sight, out of mind kind of thing. This makes it much easier to fight off any thoughts that the people losing the livestock to wolves are actually real people.

They don’t want anything to do with it actually. Some of what they do, insisting on a preserved wilderness and a natural ecosystem, is because they’ve destroyed the one they live in now. They are riddled with guilt. It’s much better to create this nirvana of pristine wilderness in their minds and it eases all the pain. Somehow it will make up for it all. It’s really much the same as an alcoholic. “There stands the glass that will ease all my pain!” (Webb Pierce, 1950)

The environmentalist has been indoctrinated to live in parallel existences. Their everyday existence enjoys the benefits of a cutthroat lifestyle that provides them money (for their lawsuits) and everything else they should be shameful for, while at the same time can lay claim to owning a pristine wilderness, at the expense of other human beings. If the environmentalist so chooses, they jump in their SUV, drive 8-10 hours and do a quick drive through their favorite park and rush home and tell everyone how great they are and fortunate that they care enough to have such things. There’s more warm and fuzzy feelings had they stayed home and watched reruns of Barney on Sesame Street.

It’s very much like owning a dog. No, really! Remember when chihuahuas were cool? Everyone ran out and bought one for status. Then there were golden retrievers, Newfoundlands, wolf hybrids, etc. Got to have one to look cool but toss it away when the fad is over.

Right now the environmentalist thinks it pretty cool to destroy the lives of others so they can have a “backyard” they can call theirs to play in. And they can do that because they are educated. They once began as assholes, tried a little of that cocaine fix- education – and enhanced what they started out with.

We are all born ignorant but not stupid. What makes us stupid is what we do with the education we have. I can’t help if you are nothing but lettuce.

Share

False Historical Claims About Deer and Predators

Just the other day, I wrote a rebuttal piece attempting to correct terrible information that was published in a Maine newspaper about how, according to the author, “coyote control doesn’t work.”

In the mythical nonsense written about why coyote control doesn’t work, the author quotes work from someone she believes to be a “carnivore conservation biologist” (therefore an expert on predator prey relationships?). This “expert,” in regards to historical deer populations in Northern Maine, was quoted as saying, “They were never there historically. It’s not a place for deer to thrive because the winters are too cold and the snow is too deep for them to move easily. Deer like edge habitat, not forests. They only moved north after the forests were cut down.”

This substantiates the point that “experts” lose any credibility as an authority on predator/prey relationships because they expose their true agenda by making biased and completely false statements to promote their agendas. We see in this statement that this “expert” claims that deer never existed in Northern Maine because deer can’t survive there because “winters are too cold and the snow is too deep for them.” In addition, this same “expert” gets her hateful digs in by making a false claim that deer migrated north into Maine “after the forests were cut down.”

What absolute nonsense! Actual historic documents, not idealistic coyote worship doctrine, show that when wolves and mountain lions were part of the Maine landscape in Northern Maine (that’s where the moose and caribou were found, thus a good meal selection for the wolves and pumas) the deer all lived on the coast of Maine and even crammed onto the islands to escape predator harassment. When the caribou vacated the state, moving into the Canadian Provinces (for whatever reason) the wolves went with them. All of this had nothing to do with the forests being cut down.

To continue the historic timeline of predator/prey relationships, after the wolves left, the deer began moving back north and the population grew significantly.

Beginning the the late 1960’s and early 1970s, the coyote moved into the state and began to flourish. With it, especially in Northern Maine, the deer numbers came crashing down and have never recovered to historic highs and never will so long as predators are protected.

In information I was sent yesterday that originated with Deer Friendly website, provides us with data that makes it extremely difficult to honestly claim that deer in Northern Maine historically were never there. (Refer to the chart below.)

This data shows that in the 1950s and 1960s, before the coyote arrived and flourished, the deer harvests in Aroostook, Washington, Piscataquis, and Somerset Counties, all of which comprise the majority of what we would consider to be Northern Maine, attributed to nearly 40% of the total deer harvest. This might be considered a pretty good indicator that in just 4 counties (of 16), 40% of the deer harvest meant Northern Maine historically DID have more deer than they do today.

Let’s compare. In the 2010s, at a time when the coyote population in the state as well as the bear population, are at historic highs, those same four countries struggle to comprise 20%, or about half, of what used to be the Maine deer harvest.

Claiming that deer were never in Northern Maine is a false statement intended only to justify the allowance of the wanton waste and destruction of coyotes and other large predators. The way these predator protectors present their myths, I wonder if they have ever asked why, if Northern Maine never had any deer, why our neighbors to the north, in Canada, have deer enough to offer their residents an opportunity to stock up venison for the winter?

There are very few, if any, legitimate reasons to not control large predators and manage deer numbers to levels conducive to protect and promote a useful, renewable resource. Presenting false information is intended only to place hunting in a negative light in hopes of ending it, while promoting the status of predators above that of people.

Share

Ample Bugs

Oh my!! We’re all gonna die!!!!

Over the past several years, I have been repeatedly told that birds, especially bats, are seriously threatened due to a lack of insects to eat because of Global Warming and other such nonsense.

After spending the Spring into mid-Summer in Maine, I can comfortably assure you there is no lack of black flies, mosquitos, deer flies, moose flies, ticks, and just about all other species of insects.

Share

Predator Prey Relationships For the Making

To go along with the age old saying that statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, the same is evident when it comes to predator/prey relationships. Simply pick the “expert” advice and opinions from those who have theories and “suggestions” that, when cherry-picked appropriately, will neatly fit into an agenda-driven narrative, and you have an instant predator/prey relationship that works for you.

Recently I was reading what is really a very ignorantly compiled bit of broad-brushed nonsense about how coyote control doesn’t work (for the purpose of providing enough deer for hunting). Void of any specific information of just how any sort of coyote control was, is, or might be implemented (it is crucial in attempting to make determinations that result in such claims as “don’t work”) to make the statement that coyote control doesn’t work is dishonest at best.

Not to belabor the issue of whether or not coyote control works or doesn’t work, perhaps missing from the writer’s obvious hatred for those who choose to hunt and eat natural food, is the simple fact that no example of whether coyote control works, or is even needed, is ever considered before, during, or after ranting on about a call for protection of large predators as though it is something that should never be done and by not doing it everything lives in perfect harmony. What nonsense. And it’s so tiring to be subjected to the same nonsense repeatedly.

This morning I was reading a Ph.D. college thesis where a person chose to study the predator/prey relationship between coyotes and whitetail deer in the Chicago area. The Abstract tells us a few very important things. First, that coyotes were the cause of 77.8% of whitetail deer fawn mortality. Second, that there are so many coyotes and deer in this study area that habitats unavoidably overlap, and three, coyote seem to prefer to prey mostly on fawn deer and not adult deer.

It would be ridiculous to make any kind of suggestion about whether coyote control would work or not work in this situation or for the reason anyone might suggest coyote control. As far as hunting goes, if there are this many deer, what coyotes do to only the deer herd is probably immaterial. There may be other collateral damage that is not being considered.

Another example of why broad-brushed accusations and conclusions are ignorant is the fact that an agenda-driven person might use this thesis to prove that coyotes only prey on fawn deer. In this case, because of an overblown deer population and the fact that coyotes, like all large predators, are opportunistic hunters, i.e. that they simply kill and eat the most easily attained prey. In this case, it is generally easier to take down a fawn deer than an adult deer.

In a different scenario, one that could very easily be found on the Maine landscape, where in much of the state there is a definite scarcity of deer and an abundance of coyotes, a hungry coyote or pack of coyotes can and do take down the biggest and healthiest of adult deer.

To claim predator control doesn’t work, based on some hyped up theory about reproductive behavior response, reveals a person’s desire to promote their own ideology at the expense of denying others the opportunity to promote surplus game management for consumptive use, a use that has been around since the beginning of time and this uncalled for totalitarian action coming at a time when people are in quest of natural, more healthy, food.

The writer who claims that predator control doesn’t work, was pointing a finger at how Maine manages its deer herd which includes a degree of coyote control. Again, void of specificity and an understanding of how, when, and where predator control would be effective, the author chooses to wrongfully claim that control doesn’t work.

In Maine’s case, much of the coyote control takes place during winter, in deer wintering areas, where coyotes often make those areas blood baths. Whether there’s any so-called reproductive behavioral response in coyotes to run out and have more pups to replace those taken during control actions, matters little. It is known and understood that any effective control must be ongoing and targeted, thus the reason the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) implements the coyote control.

The foundation of the call for coyote control in Maine is based upon the fact that, unlike the Chicago region, much of Maine has a very scarce deer population. Common sense, often lacking these days, should tell us that deer venison on the table is of a higher value to the consumer than a nasty, disease carrying wild dog. I, like many others, would like to improve our odds of filling our freezers for the winter, and thus we call for targeted coyote control in deer wintering areas in order to assist in the management of a few more deer. I would like to take the opportunity to say that for many in Maine, deer meat is an essential to providing sustenance. In addition, I would like to be able to choose to hunt deer, bear, and moose as a healthy alternative to store-bought meat.

If Maine had, statewide, the same deer density as is found in portions of Central Maine, coyote mortality on deer would mostly go unnoticed. Such is not the case.

Because we live in a post normal existence, where science is about predetermined outcomes that fit agendas and drive narratives, anyone can pick and choose theories, perspectives, and suggestions to support any claim they wish. In this case: Coyote control doesn’t work.

In the same vein, I can claim that coyote control does work when it is applied scientifically in those regions where it becomes necessary to sustain a deer population.

Share

Dog and Pony Show at the NRA

Regular readers know my position on what should be a person’s unquestioned right to self-protection. They should also know that that right does NOT include giving the government more control over, not only what I see is never questioned rights (not something meted out by a corrupt government), but how and where I can protect myself and my property.

There’s a Dog and Pony Show going on at the NRA – no surprise to me knowing the make-up and character of the NRA. The executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, has been accused of recklessly spending money for self pleasures, Oliver North was fired as president of the NRA (I guess because he tried to stop LaPierre), and now the NRA’s top lobbyist, Chris Cox, has been fired, perhaps because he was in on North’s attempted coup.

In an earlier writing I posted, I wrote: “…why would anyone think that the NRA is not a part of the so-called, and laughable, SWAMP the uninformed complain about in Washington? It tickles me that ignorant people think a “Swamp” is something new, when in reality “Swamps” have existed since Adam and Eve.”

The “Swamp” at the NRA is bubbling, however, the NRA “Swamp” leadership might be making a huge mistake. They think their do-do don’t stink when it smells so bad it could gag a maggot. The membership is roiling to a point they are ready to abandon ship, but not necessarily because of how LaPierre spends their money, although it is a catalyst.

In all of this smoke and mirrors, this morning I was reading an opinion piece published at Ammoland. The content of the opinion piece was one thing but the comments left after the piece are the canary in the coal mine perhaps.

I certainly have been around the block a time or two and understand that 26 comments left on one website about the NRA is not a scientific barometer of the supposed 5-million members of the NRA. Consider this anyway.

In reading through everyone of the comments left, there is not one comment that thinks the NRA is any longer THE top Second Amendment advocacy group. As a matter of fact, most of those leaving comments stated they are seriously considering ending their memberships and most also are refusing to give the NRA any more money or support in any way.

Consider, if you will, nearly all of the comments left voiced opposition to the direction the NRA has gone; that they are compromising, through negotiations with gun control groups, our Second Amendment rights. They also state that both LaPierre and Chris Cox are together on those compromises, which include supporting “Red Flag” laws and destruction of “Due Process,” pointing out that president Trump supported the ban on “bump stocks” and was one of the first to call out “take their guns away and worry about due process later.”

If these comments are any indication as to how the majority of Second Amendment supporters really feel, the NRA might be in more serious trouble than some think. Also consider that such actions are bound to have trickle-down effects to state and local gun rights groups, sportsman’s groups, and politicians in how they stand on Second Amendment issues.

If we consider the State of Maine for an example, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), along with Gun Owners of Maine, and the Maine Chapter of the NRA, supported and helped write a bill that was passed by the Maine Legislature in recent days, that clearly robs a person of any due process of the law and protection of their rights and personal property.

I was shocked that the leadership at SAM would actually write and support such legislation, to the point I called for the executive director of SAM to be asked to step down by the membership. And, it appears that the SAM board must also go along with this “compromise” Red Flag bill, as there are nothing but crickets coming from Maine’s leading sportsman’s advocacy group.

Is SAM out of touch, just like the NRA? Are all of these quasi or fake Second Amendment groups in serious trouble because the clear majority of Second Amendment supporters are sick and tired of their right to keep and bear arms (shall never be questioned) being systematically taken away one compromise at a time.

I would expect nothing more from big, false, controlled opposition, Second Amendment groups like the NRA. It appears that the NRA’s influence has trickled down to state groups like SAM who have some righting of their own ship to take care of if they wish to survive.

While the ponies circle the ring, I will watch and see what kind of tricks the dogs will do. If one dog does a back flip, the pony might not be where it’s supposed to be and the dog will fall and maybe be hurt.

Share

Maine: New Law One Step Closer to All-Out Ban on Wildlife Feeding

LD 1818, a bill that is supported (and written by) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), gives authority to the commissioner of MDIFW to limit and/or stop the feeding of deer, bear, moose, and wild turkey, if the commissioner “has reason to believe that the type or location of feed may create a public safety hazard or may have a detrimental effect on deer, bear, moose and wild turkey…”

Hiding behind the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease, LD 1818, goes too far, in my opinion, in granting authority to the commissioner to exercise personal judgement based on their own perspective (a weighted measure) to limit or stop wildlife feeding. LD 1818 was presented as an emergency measure. Unfortunately, the idea of giving the commissioner authority to stop feeding wildlife outside of the presence of Chronic Wasting Disease, does not meet any standards of necessary emergency ruling. This one got away from the legislators…or did it?

It is no secret that the MDIFW has fought against the feeding of wildlife, particularly deer. This newly enacted bill now gives authority to the commissioner to do just that based on the commissioner’s perspective of what constitutes a “public safety hazard.”

Playing around with laws and authority in hopes of preventing or limiting the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease is one thing, but giving a commissioner pretty much Carte Blanche authority to make such determinations exceeds the boundaries of democratic checks and balances as well as a call for “emergency” establishment of law.

Commissioners come and commissioners go and with each successive commissioner, they bring with them political agendas and ideology that may be out of step with the wishes of the majority.

Share