November 30, 2022

Maine’s Bald Eagles Not “Big Game” So Worthy of Population Counting?

What a mixed bag of contradictory statements that come from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). We heard recently that MDIFW intends to shift its focus from keeping track of population densities of the state’s deer, moose, bear, and turkey and concentrate more on the health of these designated “big game” animals.

Evidently, Maine’s bald eagles are not “big game” nor are the piping plovers, as we discovered here, and so they deserve to be counted and kept track of in order that biologists can…can…can… better manage them? Because they are NOT going to be hunted?

A recent press release from MDIFW tells us that the Department is undertaking a bald eagle “survey” – something they do every 5 years. The release states: “Biologists are looking to determine the current eagle population; determine whether the eagle population has increased, slowed, or stabilized; evaluate changes in breeding abundance and occupancy rates and compare occupancy rates in traditional eagle nesting territories based on habitat protection.”

Sounds pretty smart to me!

Will this effort tell the biologists the overall health of the bald eagle? It would appear so. So why is MDIFW counting eagles and piping plovers and are not going to place as much effort on counting “big game” species? Is it because eventually, the move will be toward deer, bear, moose, and turkeys not being hunted?

If this focus on health is going to be the new scientismic approach to big game management, then, as the spokesman for MDIFW said, it gives the managers “more flexibility” in how they manage big game. We should then focus on the intent and purpose of “flexibility.”

Flexibility in government bureaucratic management historically has meant a chance to do whatever you want to do with less accountability for what it is you are doing. It also affords a chance to more easily cave into the demands of those whose power can make life uncomfortable. Of course, that “flexibility” is never presented in such a fashion. Instead, it is revealed to the public as some modernistic approach to new science that will make things better.

Unfortunately, this is never the case and will not be in this sense. It appears to me that seeking flexibility, or not having to account for numbers in wildlife as a baseline to successful species management, to go hand in hand with the continued migration of the purpose of wildlife management from supporting sustainable game herds to environmentalism’s non-consumptive over protection, is the real goal here…even if managers and biologists haven’t a clue as to what they are doing and for whom they are doing it.

Think indoctrination institutions!

However, the same press release indicates that perhaps MDIFW will decide whether or not they need to keep counting eagles: “The findings of this study will also be used to re-evaluate the future needs for monitoring of Maine’s breeding eagle population or determine whether to modify the 5-year aerial survey census that has been ongoing since 2008.”

If it is determined that there is no need to continue 5-year counting surveys, does that mean a shift toward general health evaluations instead? And if health evaluations are the focus, like with deer, bear, moose, and turkeys, I want to know how then managers will know how many of these creatures need looking out for? When they know numbers are low, counting is vital to the recovery of the animal. Is this then the new tactic – to wait until numbers of deer, moose, bear, and turkey “seem to be” so low protective measures must be implemented along with 5-year counting surveys? Are we not returning to the beginning stages of fish and game management of 150 years ago?

It would seem there is some middle ground here somewhere and perhaps that is what MDIFW is trying to do. But please, for those of us with a brain that works well enough to know the differences, do tell me that shifting management tactics from numbers to health offers more “flexibility.” I just am not going to buy it.

Can we back up and then move on?


More Proof That the Scientific Method Has Gone to Hell

I just finished reading an article in which the author claims that utilizing “spotlight surveys” to count deer is a “waste of resources.” Spotlight surveys are when an individual or a biologist sets up cameras in the forest in order to “spot” deer, identify them and try to determine how many deer inhabit a prescribed area. The author states that the information from these cameras is so inconsistent that the data becomes useless. I’m not so sure one can make such a broad, sweeping statement completely disregarding the tool and what information is gleaned from the equipment, if they don’t know the processes used by all spotlight surveys. I’m also left with some puzzling questions that need to be asked, along with seeking who, if anyone anymore, has even the basic knowledge of the scientific process.

The author explains why the data taken from spotlight surveys can be so variable it may become useless, and I sort of, almost, tend to agree. But there’s a lot more to this than is being discussed. Let’s look at the bigger picture first.

The author says that deer biologists wrongly state that, “…[deer] density estimates are a requisite for good deer management.” And further states this to be a fallacy and without explanation. I, like probably a few million other deer hunters in America, would like to know how any biologist, or group of such, can responsibly “manage” a deer herd if they don’t have a solid idea of about how many deer they are dealing with. This population estimate must go beyond just a simple statewide guesstimate. It should be broken up into the smallest wildlife management areas as is practical. This increases accuracy.

If we continue with the belief that deer populations are an important and integral part of deer management, then the honest question will become, “Do deer managers ever exactly know how many deer are at any point at any time?” Of course they don’t. But how precise are they in their guesstimate?

One thing most of us understand is that, generally speaking, the more precise we want to be in knowing deer numbers, the more money needs to be spent to do that. However, please understand that most tactics used to count or estimate are riddled with poor scientific method.

Before I get into poor scientific method, I did want to point out something that was written in the article about the author knowing that spotlight surveys were inaccurate…at best. The first question I had about that was how does he know that? To make a statement this bold, one must know the number of deer there actually are. Otherwise, how then can one state the other information is wrong and at what percentage of the time it is wrong?

This information is not provided so can we, or do we, assume that within a test area, procedures were undertaken in which an “exact” count of deer was taken and then was compared to what the spotlight surveys said? If that is factual, imagine attempting to do this statewide in Texas. It easily becomes cost prohibitive. Therefore, it is the reason shortcuts of estimating deer populations have been employed.

Are they accurate? As the old saying goes, garbage in – garbage out. Or it’s only as good as its weakest link.

Maine is in the midst of deer and moose studies. A few years ago, as they began the studies, they began aerial counts, while boasting of how accurate these fly-overs were. Are they? Perhaps in comparison to other methods but don’t bet your farm on the results.

Let’s return to basic science. I remember in 7th Grade the first thing I learned in order to be able to honestly assess and obtain useless data was that all things must be consistent – never changing. In other words, if biologists are doing aerial counts for deer, each time they go up, it must be identical to the last time they went up and the time before that, etc. If it’s 10 or 20 years between aerial counts, all effort must be made to do things exactly as they were done before.

I have spoken with pilots and counters in the past. They explained to me that aerial counting presents a bunch of problems that few people can understand. All stated that the most important aspect to aerial counting is the relationship between the pilot and the counter(s). Each time managers fly, is it always the same counter and same pilot? Is it even the same plane or helicopter (think noise or size)? Is the weather and visibility, in the air and on the ground, the exact as before? Does the aircraft fly at the exact same altitude? And these are some of the obvious questions.

Does this mean that we throw the baby out with the bathwater? No, it means that without this basic understanding of consistency, then how reliable is any information collected which translates into poor and inaccurate determinations? The more “scientific” the process, the more accurate the results. Surely we can all agree on that. One of the problems that exists with those who argue in support of global warming, is that scientists keep changing the locations of test equipment and the processes they are using to collect the data.

Let’s return to the spotlight surveys for a moment. According to information provided in the article, the author makes statements which leads one to believe that enough work and collection of data was done that he was able to tell readers that spotlight surveys only “averaged” accuracy about 41% of the time. Again I ask, how did he arrive at that conclusion?

It is stated that there was inconsistency in the use of the cameras, i.e. locations changing, observers, equipment, etc. If the spotlight surveys were set up and run with a consistent scientific process, employing the utmost in consistent testing, can that 41% be raised to something higher? I believe it can.

Once again, assuming that deer populations are important to know and that there is no real way to ever exactly know deer populations, on a wider scale than just 20 or 30 acres, deer population estimates then become an estimation based on known values. The more consistent the testing for known values becomes, the more accurate the estimating then becomes.

If enough research was done to establish a solid 50% accuracy rate with spotlight surveys, then employing surveys as part of the process, doesn’t it all become relative? In other words, if the data at this moment in time is good data that tells me that my spotlight surveys are consistently giving me deer estimates that are 50% below actual, how then is the employment of spotlight surveys a waste of time and resources?

If the deer managers industry is or soon will be, employers of the notion that it is a fallacy that good deer management doesn’t require a good handle on the population, then none of this any longer matters – there soon will be no deer left. But, how would they know this?


NC ‘citizen scientists’ sought for wildlife camera survey

North Carolinians will soon be able to check out motion-activated cameras from their local libraries to discover what wildlife lives around them.

In addition to satisfying their curiosity, they will be helping researchers track changes in the distribution of mammals across the state in what is being billed as the world’s largest-ever camera-trap survey. The new research project enlisting the help of citizen scientists is run by the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, the state Wildlife Resources Commission and N.C. State University.<<<Read More>>>


Beware the Surveys Remember the Delphi Technique

NewOldRopeThe State of Maine is in the middle of gathering information from licensed hunters and fishermen, and in some cases the general public, that we are told they want in order to better make decisions on how to proceed with and create new wildlife management plans. Science used to be and still is the best way.

Two surveys were recently completed by Responsive Management in cooperation with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). One is the 2016 Maine Big Game Survey that collects responses from licensed hunters, both resident and non resident, large land owners and the general public, about hunting in general and specifically about land access and big game species of bear, moose, deer and turkeys.

The other survey, completed by the same entities, collects responses from only licensed fishermen, both resident and non resident. There will also be public meetings held across parts of the state to listen to the public about big game management and fisheries management. Check the MDIFW website for times and places.

Surveys and polls are basically useless instruments. To what severity the uselessness is achieved is dependent upon the methodology of the poll or survey, i.e. who is surveyed, the demographics, who funded the survey, and how the questions are asked and the words used to form the questions. I have taken some time to examine the survey results for both the hunting and fishing reports. As far as surveys go, these two are not terribly bad at manipulating questions and/or concluding answers that are misleading. But…..

Before I get into a couple of specifics of these two surveys, let me give readers a chance to understand how questions and answers are manipulated to achieve desired results. I’m not suggesting that anything in these surveys was done deliberately. I am suggesting that through indoctrination over the years, survey and poll administrators learn how to present questions from trained experts who do know how to fudge data. There is lots of money to made from doing that. Even though in this case the administrators may not have deliberately devised questions to mislead, human nature, along with the truth of polls and surveys, will render faulty results.

For those who have read my writings, and in particular read my book, “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?“, we know that during the process that led up to the (re)introduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Congress granted $200,000 to a group who wanted to introduce wolves, to answer specific questions Congress had about the wolf. (The questions are immaterial to this article)

Because this group wanted wolves badly, they set out to prove to Congress, truth be damned, that wolves were a good thing. This is where a faintly recognized term surfaced – the Delphi 15. This came about because this Congressional-appointed group went out and contracted (not necessarily for money) 15 “scientist” to answer some questions that the group would use to convince Congress. The 15 scientists were kept secret and none of them knew that there were any others involved, thus, they did not know their names.

I discovered through research that this group, ordained by Congress, quietly and as secretly as they could, opted to use what is called the Delphi Technique to achieve the answers they were looking for that would fit their wolf narrative. 15 scientists, unknowingly conned via the Delphi Technique, and there we get the title, The Delphi 15.

To better explain about the Delphi Technique, below is posted what I wrote in my “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” book.


The Delphi Technique

Take notice that Dr. Bergerud, in his email states that: “I believe US Fish and Wildlife hired a consultant with questionnaire skills.” Bingo! That is what the Delphi technique is1. Some of us may not know much of anything about the Delphi Technique but I’m willing to wager most of us have been Guinea pigs to it.

The best way to define what the Delphi Technique is in simple terms is to say that it is a method in which those administering a brain storming session, or in this case a “questionnaire,” manipulate the questions and the procedures in order to get the end result that is desired. Let me give two classic examples of this.

First would be a poll. Every day in our lives, perhaps more so in the news, we are constantly being barraged by the results of polling. Should we believe the results of the polls we are given? Absolutely not, especially when we are not given the questions and the structure and context to which those questions were presented.

Most of us have taken poll questions. Have you ever been given one in which you really could not find the “correct” answer? That is the honest answer you would give if you had that opportunity. That becomes the result of the Delphi Technique.

The other, perhaps not quite as obvious and a part of everybody’s life, is a brain storming session. These take on several names, such as, symposium, seminar, public forum, town hall, etc. I’ve been involved in many but for most of them I had no idea what was really going on. I certainly do now and avoid them like the plague.

Those administering the event, are usually led by one or two people. It is those people who “know what they are doing.” They want to achieve a specific result and therefore must manipulate the setting and events to their advantage – much in the same way as a magician.

Let’s say that you attend a public forum to gather input from the public on ways to make your community a “better place.” Who gets to decide what a “better place” is? What most people don’t know is those administering the forum have already decided what will make your community a “better place.” Their job is to make you think you were part of the decision making process. All they have to do is present some kind of evidence that shows the majority of people in your community decided what was a “better place” and to make it happen.

Often we find ourselves being placed into “breakout sessions.” These come complete with a table and/or chairs in a circle, an easel board and a facilitator. It’s the trained facilitator’s job to force the hand to achieve a desired result.

During this brain storming breakout session, you might be asked to offer ideas on what would make your community a better place. Take notice the next time you find yourself in this setting, that the facilitator will prompt or edge the group with “ideas” of his or her own. These “ideas” are predetermined. Seldom are there ever results during the forum. We might be told that what the consensus was will be shared. It can easily be said, because each facilitator, by instruction, added to the list the same “idea”, making it a majority “consensus.”

Imagine what the results would be if the administrator and the facilitators only offered up questions, like in a poll, that forced participants to provide answers they didn’t really want to.

Dr. Bergerud indicated in his statement, the tactics used by Delphi administrators. He said that nobody in the group of 15 knew who the others were. This is very important. They could not, before, during or after, consult with each other. After all, they might discover they had been duped.

In the Volume I Summary of “Wolves for Yellowstone: A Report for the United States Congress,” the report willingly exposed some of the schemes of the Delphi Technique when they wrote that they had withheld important information from the 15 members, seeking their opinions of the subject. Does the “Best Available Science” operate on opinions obtained from scientists who are denied information and data? Does this “science” have “different meaning for different people?”

In essence that is the Delphi Technique that was used on the “Delphi 15” of those commissioned by the United States Congress to get answers to 4 questions. Do we have the exact questions given to the 15 members? Do we have the exact answers provided by the 15 experts? Is this what is described by the United States Government as “Best Available Science?”


Within the two surveys used in Maine, sometimes questions are asked while seeking an answer from more than two choices. The wording of the choices can be crafted in such a way as to mislead, or misdirect the survey taker. In addition, the responses sought after may not cover the full spectrum of what the person being survey might answer if simply asked to tell their opinion of something. It is also relevant to report that when people read such reports, they cherry pick, or are misled, and see only what they want to see or what the administrators of the survey want them to see.

Let me give a couple of examples from the hunting survey. In offering summaries and explanations of methodology, the surveyors wrote: “Another question gauged respondents’ comfort level regarding wildlife around their homes. Using a continuum from the most comfortable (“I enjoy seeing and having wildlife around my home or on my property”) to the least comfortable (“I generally regard wildlife around my home or on my property as dangerous”), a large majority of each group (70% of the general population and 80% each of landowners and hunters) chose the highest comfort level, and nearly all the rest chose the second most comfortable level.”

Many of you may ask what’s wrong with that. It’s easy to explain really. Surveyors are seeking what they call “comfort level” but they don’t directly define what that means. Instead, they offer us an example of both ends of what they call a “continuum.” Note that at the “least comfortable” the choice offered is that they “generally regard wildlife…as dangerous.” Dangerous? Where did dangerous come in? Can’t property owners not care whether they see wildlife even if they don’t think it’s dangerous? Think of the possibilities of how questions and choices of responses can certainly misrepresent truth.

Another example in the hunting survey has to do with gathering input about the respondents on their knowledge of the animal specie bear, moose, deer and turkeys. Exactly how the survey takers were asked the question I don’t know, but the results show that an overwhelming majority of people answered that they knew “a great deal or a moderate amount” about the four species. This, of course, is simple self-perception. If the survey question does not contain qualifiers, like do you have a degree in wildlife biology, surely of what value does such a question hold? Is this used to convince the uneducated public and unsuspecting wildlife managers that because the respondents know so much about the species, their answers have scientific value? (only if convenient?)

In the fishing survey what struck me most about this survey was this, written in the Executive Summary: “The study entailed a telephone survey of resident and nonresident licensed anglers in Maine, age 16 years or older. ” The survey is designed ONLY for licensed fishermen – resident and non resident. While the hunting survey involved the general population, the fishing survey does not. While perhaps not completely necessary, from what I gather, the surveyors didn’t go out of their way to explain why the general public was not also survey about fishing and their support or non support of the sport. Isn’t this important to wildlife managers? They tell us repeatedly that as far as hunting goes, they must make their decisions based on social toleration. Therefore, the survey provides no examples of why a member of the general public might choose not to fish. Isn’t it just as important to understand the reasons to not fish as well as what kind of fishing one prefers.

Let me further explain. I was reading George Smith’s article this morning about how this fishing survey proves that anglers don’t care if they catch big fish or a lot of fish. This may or may not be true, but do we really know that? Smith also writes: “Is it possible that if the fishing or hunting sucks for a long, long time folks forget what they are doing.  Habit without product?  The new breed of conservationist?”

This statement also holds a certain amount of truth. There’s also another byproduct of Maine fishing and tainted surveys that can be misleading and/or not giving the whole picture, as we see above. Smith writes in his article that Maine fishermen, 77%, support catch and release rules and yet the survey says that 81% of fishermen did not choose to fish in designated catch and release waters. Choosing what fits our narrative?

To fully understand the results of the fishing survey, you would have to fully understand the demographics. While demographics are in the survey, the average person cannot distinguish why people mostly fish with a spinning rod and reel and yet support catch and release rules. Is it that they prefer everyone else practice catch and release so they have more fish to catch and keep? Or, as it appears to me, whoever presented the question asked it in such a way as to create confusion and/or mislead. According to what Smith wrote, he said that 77% of fishermen “support” catch and release rules. Does that mean they WANT more catch and release rules or we just being told to think that catch and release is preferred over catch and keep?

The answer is, we don’t know, nor does this survey tell us. Therefore, if we bear in mind that statistics prove that statistics can prove anything, managers, sportsmen, pundits and my grandmother can pull out of these surveys anything they want that fits their narrative. I suppose MDIFW managers will do the same thing, which leaves us with the question, why did we spend all this time and money on these useless surveys?

There will be public meetings where citizens can go and say their piece. There will also be an Online survey where anyone interested can offer comments. Please bear in mind what I hope I have taught you here.

When it’s all said and done, MDIFW will spend the greatest part of their time copying and pasting all the previous game management plans and adding a little change here and a little change there. So why can’t we spend the money and time on worthwhile events?


Maine IFW Should Stop Wasting Resources on Developing Plans

George Smith seems upset that the Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife isn’t that much interested in spending gobs of time and money promoting an anti-hunting, Environmentalist-backed plan that would further erode the support for and opportunities to hunt, fish and trap. I’m glad the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) does not support the large plan presented by Mark Duda and Responsive Management. I further hope it never reaches a vote in the Legislature.

I cannot specifically comment on the survey by Responsive Management because I haven’t seen it, but such surveys, in general, are a waste of time and money. These surveys are no different than forming a “task force” which amounts to drinking coffee, bitching and moaning, and nothing is ever accomplished. So why do them.

According to what Smith writes in his latest article, this survey says that Maine people are the happiest they have seen and satisfied with the job MDIFW is doing. Not that Maine should rest on those laurels, if, in fact, that is actually true, but why spend millions of dollars trying to carry out plans that most business people would see as a terrible return on investment.

I’ve seen these surveys done in other states and seen the results of them. What they end up doing is playing right into the hands of the Environmentalist movement bent on the complete takeover of all state fish and wildlife agencies – the same movement that has taken over the National Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

No thank you! Keep your worthless survey and keep your worthless plan. The only way that the MDIFW can remain with a high degree of satisfaction is to keep the environmentalists out of the department. Developing lines of communication and inviting in the enemy will spell disaster for traditional Maine sportsmen.

That certainly doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. That’s one reason I am fast at work keeping a little check and balance going with the department and informing readers as to what is actually going on. Just the other day I commented that MDIFW might need to improve on their communications. But that doesn’t mean tossing out the baby with the bathwater and spending millions of dollars to implement worthless and costly programs.

I have said before that I believe MDIFW does a pretty good job. A few changes, with little fanfare or money spent, could increase the perception of Maine people as to the good job MDIFW is doing. Here’s a brief look:

First – and this is actually an opposite suggestion from what it appears Responsive Management (RM) wants – funnel all press and public communications through one clearing agent. RM wants all employees to be mouthpieces for the department. Really? So we continue to get one biologist telling us that the mild winter is terrific for all wildlife, while another says it’s no big deal and that severe winters don’t have much effect on Maine’s wildlife, while dissing taxpayers by saying people make a big deal out of nothing.

Second, MDIFW could vastly improve public perceptions if they would put a better effort into getting game harvest data out to the public in a timely manner. Just about every state in the Union releases hunting harvest numbers almost instantly. Maine used to. You would think that with the technology and the existence of “instant information” preliminary harvest numbers would be made available within hours of the close of each season. It would send a big message to the hunters that MDIFW actually cares.

Third, is to lose the stinking attitudes and begin listening to the sportsmen afield. I think Maine has done a better job in recent years in this event. They should continue to improve on it. Each and every time Maine residents are told they don’t know anything, the relationship is driven apart. Each time sportsmen have to wait for 3, 4, 5 months to get any data on deer, moose, bear and turkey harvest, the message comes across loud and clear that MDIFW doesn’t care about the sportsmen.

Here are three suggestions and they will not take millions of dollars. The effort will go a long, long way.

Let’s stop already with the task forces and surveys and devising worthless plans that are never followed. Let’s improve the relationship between MDIFW and ALL SPORTSMEN, not the handful of elites, and reduce the mixed messages being delivered to the press.


USFWS Seeks Information on Human Value of Nature, Wildlife, Environment

Abstract: Nature and the outdoors have always been an important 
part of the fabric of American life. However, there are major questions 
about the present and future role of nature and the outdoors in our 
increasingly diverse, technologically oriented, and rapidly changing 
society. For our programs to remain relevant to American life today and 
tomorrow, we must be aware of public sentiment toward the part nature 
plays in the quality of our lifestyles.
    It is for these reasons that we plan to use a quantitative survey 
to collect information on the attitudes that the public maintains 
towards the natural environment; the effects of contact with nature on 
participants' health and quality of life; the extent of contact with 
nature and obstacles to greater contact with nature; general knowledge 
of nature and wildlife; concerns toward selected environmental issues; 
and socio-demographic variables. Results will help improve the design 
and delivery of new or existing programs aimed at engaging the public 
in nature-related activities (e.g., outreach and educational 
programming at national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries).<<<

How Accurate Are State Deer Harvest Estimates?

According to an article found at Outdoor Life“Hunters want it [deer harvest estimate] to be important, but they also don’t believe it. They say how can you know how many deer were killed if you didn’t check my deer? And that’s true. These estimates aren’t down to the individual deer, but scientifically this is an accurate and proven way to estimate deer harvest. Trends, though, are most important.”

It is my opinion that what hunters are interested in, at least initially, is a report from state wildlife officials as to the deer harvest, whether estimated or as accurate as it can be, in order to observe the trend taking place, and they don’t want to have to wait several months for that basic information. For those, like me, more interested in the actual harvest data, I understand having to wait a reasonable amount of time to get that data. For an “estimate” such guesses should be available within a few days of season closure.

But what of the science of deer management? If all wildlife officials are interested in is survey trends, I’m not so sure that I can have a lot of faith that the management plan is being laid out properly if the agency doesn’t know the population at any given point. There need be some kind of checks and balances in order to have confidence the modeling is working. Modeling has a poor track record. It would seem that using only trends would result in discovery too late in order to make adjustments.

Either way, the idea of the harvest estimates immediately concluding the deer hunting – or bear or moose, etc. – is for the hunters. It’s information they would like to have. It’s a way to inform them as to whether they are getting the best bang for their buck – pun intended.



Participate in the Spruce Budworm public opinion survey

*Editor’s Note* – It is my opinion that this “survey,” like all surveys, is constructed for desired results. It is being sold as a means of “assessing public opinions and concerns” for a graduate student. The survey might help readers in a better understanding of a possible approach that will be taken IF and WHEN the spruce bud worm hits full force. Don’t think for a minute that your opinion matters in the grand scheme of things.

AUGUSTA – Participation in this Maine Forest Service survey will help inform public opinions and concerns on an issue which encompasses the economic and environmental impact of forests.

Source: Participate in the Spruce Budworm public opinion survey | Daily Bulldog


86% Of Deer Hunters Hunt for Meat

I’ve written some about this before, in dispelling the lie often bandied around by the schilling Media that hunting is about trophies. In a recent survey of hunters in Massachusetts, 86% of hunters responding in a survey said they pursued whitetail deer, “for the delicious meat afforded them.”<<<Read More>>>


77% Support Legal Hunting as Means to Control Wildlife Populations

In a recent Responsive Management Report newsletter, among an array of attitudes and people’s perspectives on dealing with nuisance wildlife, is a statistic showing that 77% of the 3,962 survey respondents in 13 northeast states, support legal and regulated hunting as a viable means of controlling wildlife populations.

Nuisance Newsletter

The 13 states include: Connecticut (307), Delaware (302), Maine (300), Maryland (300), Massachusetts (303), New Hampshire (308), New Jersey (302), New York (311), Pennsylvania (302), Rhode Island (305), Vermont (320), Virginia (301), and West Virginia (301). The number in parentheses are the number of participants of the survey in that state.

The survey includes attitudes of people about nuisance wildlife, species involved, what the nuisance was, who should deal with these nuisance issues, including how this should be funded.

A full report can be found here.