July 11, 2020

Finding: Eight of Ten WORST Deer Hunting States in Northeast

Lawrence Pyne has written an article in the Burlington Free Press about the latest “finding” by Wide Open Spaces (WOS) that ranks Vermont the third worst state to deer hunt. WOS also places eight of the top ten worst hunting states as being in the Northeast. According to Pyne’s report, it appears those determining what makes for bad hunting don’t like cold weather, a lot of hunters and want to see deer by the gobs like: “sitting in a padded armchair in a warm shooting house while debating which of the many deer feeding on bait in front of you is a “shooter”.

For me personally, I like reports like this. I only wish Maine had been labeled the worst deer hunting state, highly recommending that EVERYONE stay away from Maine and don’t go hunt there. Maine has few deer. Maine has cold weather. There are still open lands in Maine where a hunter can freely go and hunt. Too many hunters flocking to the state will continue to ruin that freedom.

So, if you’re thinking of going to Maine to deer hunt….FORGEDABOUTIT! It sucks! Oh, sure, there are some who want to advertise that Maine is some mecca of great deer hunting but don’t be fooled by that ploy in misadvertising. STAY AWAY.

RealBuck

MaineDeerSuccess

2013-2014 New York Deer Harvest Numbers: 243,567 but not enough

Share

Blaming Numbers of Deer on Lyme Tick Increase is Dishonest

An online news article states that Vermont now leads the nation in reported cases of Lyme disease. The same report blames this on an “overabundant deer population.” The same report claims that the ideal deer per square mile, in order to “control” ticks, would be 20 per square mile. Other than a few isolated areas, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont don’t have that many deer.

We understand that deer are a source of a “last blood meal” for the ticks’ survival and perpetuation, it is not the only source. Surely, reducing actual “overabundance” of deer populations would contribute to the reduction in tick prevalence and thus Lyme disease infection rates, it appears as though, with information being given that shows low density deer populations in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, the deer is becoming a convenient scapegoat. Perhaps there are other agendas at work here.

If the intent is to reduce the prevalence of Lyme disease, how about providing some honesty in scientific research.

Share

Discrepancies in Issuance of Moose Permits

Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have a wide discrepancy in the implementation of moose hunting permits as part of its moose management plan. Why?

Keeping in mind that animals don’t see boundaries, there are geographical and habitat availability differences between the three northern New England states. These issues and many other factors, drive the plans and decision making processes of each state’s fish and wildlife department.

However, in a news report found in the Concord Monitor, we find that each of the three states use the issuing of moose permits for moose management in different ways – very different.

Vermont sends out one hunter for every 10 moose, Maine sends out one hunter for every 23 moose, while New Hampshire sends out one hunter for every 38 moose.

These numbers are based on moose population estimates for each of the three states as follows: Vermont – 2,400; Maine – 65,000; New Hampshire – 4,000.

Without having every available data to make comparisons, these numbers provide for interesting debate over a cup of joe.

Share

A Collection of Moose Parts Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Moose Expert

Found in the Stowe, Vt. Stow Today, we read: “If you want a walking Wikipedia of the moose, not to mention the threats that assail it, then Alexander is your man.

In his jam-packed office in St. Johnsbury, he has vials of moose ovaries and ticks in all life stages, boxes of jawbones and antlers, teeth and other items that he brings on show-and-tells. He has every chart imaginable, from a tally of the just-finished hunt this year — he’s counted 147 so far, about as predicted — to how many moose have been killed by hunters since seasons began in 1999: about 6,150.”

Does collecting parts and pieces make for the “best” expert on moose? Just because a person has the largest automobile junkyard in the state doesn’t make them an expert auto mechanic necessarily.

Here are some issues not being addressed honestly which renders this article without a great deal of credibility. The first claim is that Vermont’s moose is in trouble. Is it? Is the moose in trouble because the state cannot maintain enough moose to satisfy all those interested in having more moose? When fish and game departments became fish and wildlife departments and decided decisions on wildlife management would be based mostly on the social demands of the public, the moose population has shown signs of fluctuation. Because it’s in a downward trend in some places, it is easy to claim the moose is in trouble and find nonsense issues to blame it on.

This article blames the decline of moose in Vermont on three issues: Brainworm, Winter Tick and Climate Change (global warming). Global warming is really a non starter because facts show us that the “climate” hasn’t warmed for at least a decade and yet those who make money from repeating the lies about climate change, beat the drum of unsubstantiated conclusions and predictions about global warming. If we listened to the “experts” we would have all been dead by now. It’s time to move on. Most of the world is very sick and tired of the bovine excrement surrounding the idiocy of man-caused global warming.

On the same token, it’s easy to blame the presence of winter ticks on global warming. This is done, for political reasons only as it appears even the so-called experts don’t even understand the simple life-cycle of the winter tick.

Left out of the discussion of moose management is whether or not attempting to create a moose population large enough to make money from selling moose hunting licenses and satisfy the social demands of those interested in driving around in climate-controlled cars observing moose, is the best scientific approach to managing a healthy moose herd. I contend it probably is not.

A couple of short years ago Maine bragged that their moose population might exceed 90,000; like that was a good thing. Is Maine really capable of sustaining 90,000 moose? Evidently not, because all indications are that the moose has realized significant die-offs, mostly due to winter ticks. Don’t any of these biologists think that perhaps 90,000 moose are too many and due to that fact alone, contributed to and/or is 100% responsible for the overwhelming presence of winter ticks? This in turn, created that “balance” few in this world understand is how Mother Nature does things. Isn’t this Biology 101? Too many animals breeds disease. Disease causes die-offs. If all things remained the same, except the outbreak of winter ticks continued to kill moose, doesn’t it make sense that once the moose are substantially reduced, we will be witness to a die-off of winter ticks? Is so, moose numbers will return and if allowed to return to the same high numbers, the up and down, unstable cycle of population changes will persist.

What good are we doing our moose populations when we parrot the nonsense of global warming and blame everything on this fake occurrence? In addition, because real science has been tossed out the window, in exchange for Post-Normal, or Romance science, states with moose might be attempting to provide more moose than the complete carrying capacity will allow. After all, carrying capacity is more than just food and forests.

So long as these romance writers, writing about romance scientists, persists, we cannot expect any substantial, effective and long lasting, real knowledge to be gained that creates a positive environment for real wildlife management.

Share

Vermont’s Moose Permits Drop From 1,225 to 285

And officials don’t understand why the number of people applying for a permit has also decreased? Give me a break!

From the Burlington Free Press:

“The decline in permit applications has not been entirely unexpected and has followed a sharp decrease in permit numbers, from 1,225 in 2009 to 285 this year. Yet late last month, state Fish and Wildlife Department officials were alarmed to discover they had received only about as third as many applications as anticipated.”

Share

Vermont Publishes Deer Harvest Information

“Abundant apples, acorns and beechnuts that were available to deer last fall may have resulted in deer being more dispersed than in some previous years. However, cold temperatures and snow in the November rifle season likely increased the ability of hunters to find, see and take deer.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Complete Lack of Understanding Conservation of Wildlife

Below are a couple of comments found in an article to which I have provided a link to. It epitomizes the ignorance and lack of understanding of what wildlife conservation is about. It’s a representation of ignorance of history and the proven wildlife management systems that have been in play for decades that have been quite successful in providing a mostly balanced and healthy ecosystem.

I suppose this is part of the “new understanding and paradigm shift” animal rights perverts and environmentalists are trying to force onto the public. This effort is void of any actual science and proven management techniques.

“Brenna Galdenzi of Stowe, a member of Green Mountain Animal Defenders……said her group is very supportive of having kids attend outdoor educational camps, but is worried about diverting conservation money to support camps where hunting and trapping are taught. That represents a change in the way the conservation license plates are used — from raising money to support non-game wildlife and watersheds to using it to support game sports, she said.”

And also this comment: “They want to use this conservation plate to fund some activities that certainly wouldn’t be conservation-minded. They want to teach kids to trap,” said Peggy Larson of Williston, a lawyer and veterinarian.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Blaming Global Warming, Vermont Cuts Moose Permits 70% Below 2008 Levels

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Vermont regulators want to cut the number of moose hunting permits by 20 percent because the herd is below its target population.

The state is planning to issue 285 firearm licenses for the fall moose hunt, 70 fewer than last year and more than 70 percent below the peak number issued in 2008.<<<Read More>>>

Share

And Vermont Has A Bear Problem

A game warden in Vermont says that bears are becoming more and more of a problem in the Green Mountain State because, “the bear population is higher than it’s ever been.”

An official with the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department says that the state is nearing carrying capacity for bears; that is the maximum number that the state has determined that it can ideally handle for the habitat available.

Vermont has begun implementing some changes in hopes of finding ways of reducing the bear populations. One way is to expand the bear hunting season and the state also plans to hold a bear hunting seminar on August 17, 2013, in order to encourage and educate more hunters to take up bear hunting.

Share

Moose Populations Shrinking – No Talk of Predators

The lame mantra continues! Moose populations in northern New England seem to be shrinking and at least one excuse for this appears to be the presence of those dastardly winter ticks or moose ticks more commonly called. But as usual, only half the story is being told and inaccurate information is being passed around about climate and the ticks.

I have provided information in the past about winter ticks, i.e. how they attach to moose, survival rates, what kind of weather conditions are good and bad for ticks, etc. And yet, the so-called professionals fail in telling a more accurate story and also a complete story.

Experts say ticks are thriving because of warmer winters, yet no data has been provided to support the claim that northern New England is experiencing warmer winters. In addition, it appears incorrectly stated that colder weather kills winter ticks. While few studies have been conducted about winter ticks and moose, one study conducted by William M. Samuel and Dwight A. Welch, “Winter Ticks on Moose and Other Ungulates: Factors Influencing Their Population Size”, says that in order to kill winter ticks during the winter there needs to be 6 consecutive days where the outdoor temperature does not exceed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

In the latest AP story found in the Boston Globe, reporters state that ticks become less of a problem when there exists long, cold winters. Long and cold winters are a problem to a moose but has really little effect on the ticks, when you are talking about each adult moose carrying up to 150,000 ticks.

No, the goal here is to promote further the environmentalists’ con job of global warming as being the cause of moose population declines. In the article linked to, there is no mention of what the “other” factors are that “might” be influencing a shrinking moose herd. In particular, there is no mention of predators. It’s always about global warming.

The real detriment to this kind of shallow, ignorant thinking is that if there exists a problem, authorities will NEVER learn the real reasons for species decline.

What is good about all of this is the fact that somebody is now paying attention, as outdoorsmen have for a few years now been making statements about the condition of moose and their shrinking populations. Are ticks a problem in this? Of course, but if biologists are honestly concerned about what is really going on, it’s time they consider all factors to the equation and not just an inaccurate belief that warm winters are causing more ticks.

In Minnesota a similar problem exists with declining moose populations. Scientists have been trying to figure out what has caused the moose population to all but disappear over the past decade or so and in all this time have not considered depredation by wolves and other predators and only seem to be focusing on global warming.

Until we have some honest and thorough scientific investigation into these problems, don’t expect any changes to occur other than what is happening now – hunters are having their moose hunting opportunities cut back.

Share