Hand Picking And Misrepresenting Facts

Not that it really matters much, but I’m not sure how many of you have ever come across Joe Miele’s rants and spins throughout the Internet media sites. Miele is a member of the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting. Everything that he writes is absurd, taken out of context, misrepresented and twisted to fit into his agenda to stop hunting.

His latest attempt I found this morning at the Times-Reporter in which he comments on a previous editorial about the use of hunting to control deer populations.

A recent editorial suggested that the hunting season be expanded to control the statewide deer population, but this would only make things worse since sport hunting is the cause of deer overpopulation.

The Division of Wildlife is funded through the sale of hunting permits and the excise taxes affixed to the cost of weapons, ammunition and hunting equipment. In order to ensure that it meets its budget every year, division biologists design hunting seasons and kill limits to ensure that the deer herd increases the following year, thereby �necessitating� more hunting.

I’ve said it many times before how it amazes me that hunters are blamed for the extinction of nearly every known animal species ever hunted but when it comes to finding ways to limit or reduce overgrown deer populations in some areas, hunters are blamed for the overpopulation.

Miele gives no credit of any kind to wildlife management, portraying all wildlife biologists as morons and the only driving force behind what they do is money. Let’s be forthcoming here. It is true that these agencies would not exist (perhaps) if not for the billions of dollars generated over decades by licensed hunters, fishermen, trappers, etc. I wonder how much Miele contributes to the till so he can go bird watching or viewing some other kind of wildlife that has been managed by the use of us evil hunters?

It is also true that fish and game departments manage wildlife to provide opportunities for outdoor sportsmen. That’s their job. It is also true that politics plays a role in decisions within fish and game departments - too much so I’m afraid. What Miele doesn’t want to tell anyone is that using hunting as a tool can accomplish an array of things depending on the desired outcome.

He is correct that hunting as a tool can be used to increase a deer population. This tactic has been used in Maine for several years now to rebuild depleted deer populations. Their management plans have worked in many areas, some to a point that now they have had to use the hunting as a tool in a different way to reduce the population in areas where there are now too many deer.

Miele even goes to the pains of providing readers with information that he says proves hunting deer increases populations. It is a pretty well settle science that under the right conditions, meaning good habitat and ample food, deer and other wild animals have a kind of “built in” reproduction rate. In other words, as he states in his examples within controlled environments, killing off a certain number of deer resulted in birth rates that shot up dramatically. I know of few biologists who will refute that claim.

Once again though, Miele doesn’t tell the whole story so that readers can understand the complete science behind game management. While not everyone is quick to pat wildlife biologists on the back for their work, they do understand the science behind management and it is totally irresponsible to suggest that fish and game departments deliberately set out to create overblown deer populations because there’s more money in it for them. This of course is absurd.

Fish and game departments are not perfect and don’t claim to be. Talk to any wildlife biologist and they will probably tell you that they wished they could manage wildlife the way science dictates not politics. There would be no future for fish and game departments if they operated as Miele tries to make out.

Hand picking and using incomplete data is a game played by people like Miele and thousands of others including anti-hunting and animal rights organizations as a tool to manipulate public opinion. They have played this game for years and will continue to do so as they have no means of which to provide facts to back up any of their claims. Honesty on their part would show all of us that they don’t approve of hunting and/or they believe that animals have rights equal to or greater than those of humans. That doesn’t work well to garner monetary support so other methods are necessary to play on people’s emotions as a direct path to someone’s pocketbook.

Don’t get suckered in to such immoral tactics as Mr. Miele shows in his rebuttal.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this article check these out:

• Fewer Bear Encounters In New Jersey
• New Jersey Calling In Reinforcements
• Wyoming Still Feeding Elk
• Groups Sue To Stop Elk Feeding Fearing CWD. New Live Test For CWD Near
• Marketing Maine’s Outdoors
• Vermont Man Culls Coyotes His Own Way
• Can We Ever Trust Science Again?
• Some Things Are Just Too Torturous To Face In Life
• The Nature Conservancy Forces Environmentalism On Indonesian Natives
• Milt’s Corner - Mt. Washington Valley From New Hampshire

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!