Female Canada Lynx: Face-On And Marking Her Territory

This video was sent to me by a reader who retrieved it from his trail camera set for video.

Idaho Considers The Use Of Trapping To Control Wolves……BUT!!

Hunters and trappers should not get their hopes up that soon they will be trapping wolves or that trapping and snaring will make any dents in overblown wolf populations. I see this move by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to consider the use of traps and snares on wolves as nothing more than political whitewash.

Trapping Today refers to the move as a great opportunity saying, “This would provide an incredible opportunity for trappers in Idaho while helping accomplish the state’s wolf management goals.” I agree with Jeremiah if it is allowed it will help but the deck is stacked against such a move with much of the reality of it happening in the hands of fish and game.

Daily Me accurately reports that just because IDFG might approve trapping and snaring doesn’t mean a lot.

But that doesn’t mean hunters will automatically be allowed to do so.

There are a few obstacles that will prevent Idaho from trapping and/or snaring wolves anytime in the near future, if at all. First consider that the Canada lynx is a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act. Because of this, Idaho will more than likely need an “Incidental Take Permit”. It is up to IDFG to pursue this through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Application for such a permit is no guarantee a permit will be granted. And, more than likely, any permit will come with restrictions on traps and settings, etc. that may prove so restrictive, the effort put forth by trappers may be pointless.

Second, the Canada lynx has become a tool used by the environmentalists to promote their agendas of ending hunting and trapping. They have learned how to get the lynx protected and how to prohibit trapping in areas where lynx exist. Consider the state of Maine, where lawsuits by environmentalists have been effective in putting an end to trapping and snaring of coyotes, the only effective way to control coyote/wolf hybrid populations. For Maine to provide trappers the opportunity to take coyotes in lynx areas, requires an “Incidental Take Permit” and to date the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife have failed to do so. Not only that but MDIFW appears to be so intimidated by further lawsuits they’ve simply banned snaring altogether. All of this taking place while the deer herd disappears.

Third, unless IDFG is living in a vacuum, I would assume they fully realize that any proposal to trap and/or snare wolves will be met with lawsuits. And as history shows us this will be tied up in the courts for years while the wolves continue to wreak havoc.

Remember, any of these proposals are all dependent upon the ruling that will come down from Judge Donald Molloy as he reviews testimony from the trial on whether or not to return wolves to Endangered Species Act protection. If he opts to do so, all this talk is useless. If wolves remain in Idaho’s hands for management, talk of trapping and snaring is cheap.

Is the IDFG all talk and no action? How serious are they of actually reducing wolf numbers? Let’s see!

Tom Remington

Trail Camera Videos: Canada Lynx, Black Bear And Two Cubs, Moose

A reader sent me six short videos he collected from his trail camera in Northern Maine. First you’ll see a Canada lynx, followed by a black bear and two cubs and finishes with a moose. It’s very interesting in that all the videos were taken from the same camera at the exact same site.

Wildlife Management: Who Controls It, Where Is It Headed?

Yesterday I received an email that originated with David Allen, President and CEO of Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. In that email was a memo from the law firm of Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, more specifically attorney Karen Budd Falen. Mr. Allen explained that Ms. Falen, whose offices is in Wyoming, is “well versed in issues relevant to significant landowners and sportsmen, primarily in the West.”

The memorandum, which can be downloaded in its entirety with this link, shares data that readily explains how the Endangered Species Act isn’t about saving species. Instead it has been manipulated, which most honest people have come to realize, in order to use taxpayer money to make some environmental groups and individuals quite wealthy.

Looking at the data supplied by Budd-Falen, she claims that as of May 17, 2010 there are a total of 1,374 species in the United States listed as either “threatened” or “endangered”. To get a grip on how this translates into the cost for taxpayers, she also states that it costs, on average, $85,000 per species simply to add to the Endangered Species list. In addition, $515,000 per species to designate critical habitat.

If you add that all up, taxpayers are staring down the barrel of a loaded gun that is costing them $707,610,000. And all this only for listing and designating critical habitat in what is supposed to save 1,374 species of plants and/or animals.

Add to this cost the attorney fees paid out to mostly environmental groups of around $12 million and us taxpayers are forking over some $720 million dollars and with that have “recovered” 21 species. That’s something in the order of $34 million per saved species. Good investment?

None of this accounts for what’s happened to businesses and private lands and land ownership and the costs associated with those.

For some of us who actually care about conservation, saving species and protecting habitat, this leaves us with a question. How much of this money or any money for that matter that these “conservation” and “environmental” groups is used to actually save species and protect habitat? According to Budd-Falen there is no evidence to suggest one dime of their money is used for that purpose. If the majority of these groups are only sucking the coffers dry and doing nothing to save species, doesn’t rational thinking tell us something has to change?

With an extended strong arm of the government and a money-making con job from environmental groups, this seriously limits the ability of state fish and game departments to properly manage their wildlife……doesn’t it? Let me cite one small example of this.

In Maine, many of these same environmental groups successfully petitioned the USFWS to name the Canada lynx a threatened species and along with it designated critical habitat. As a result effective means of trapping large predators were eliminated which resulted in an overgrown population of coyotes. The whitetail deer herd, in much of the same areas as where the lynx critical habitat was designated, has dropped below sustainable levels. Because of ESA manipulation, an Act that needs rewriting and countless, unchecked lawsuits, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has been partially handcuffed, having been stripped of management tools to do their job. Is preserving species about ruining one or more to save another?

In the email, David Allen asks: “The question begs to be asked, where are we going with our wildlife system in this country and what is the anticipated end result? The issue with the “wolf recovery” program in MT, ID & WY is the tip of the iceberg in this entire issue, however it is a prime example of the results of using the ESA far beyond what it was intended. Those who cherish the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation need to become acutely aware of what & how the Endangered Species Act is being utilized today and where it is heading.”

In order to “anticipate” the “end result”, I think it first imperative to get over some hurdles that far too many refuse to even consider. Attorney Budd-Falen spells it out very clearly and I concur. None of this is about saving species. It’s about making money and promoting an agenda. I think many will agree that making money through these lawsuits is obvious. What they don’t want to admit is that these groups have an agenda that’s not about saving species. What that specific agenda is varies, however the “end result” is the same – stop hunting, fishing and trapping. There’s also no better way to do this than to take people’s land away from them and strip them of their rights.

As Allen pointed out the wolf litigation is but the tip of the iceberg as is the Canada lynx, the spotted owl, the desert tortoise, the delta smelt, etc., etc. If outdoor sportsmen and our state fish and game departments think we can stop this by arguing about one specific species in one specific area of one specific state, we’re woefully wrong.

Until the Endangered Species Act is rewritten and modernized nothing will change. It will be more of the same and the end result will not be pretty. If we employ the old adage that for those who fail to learn history, they will repeat it, we see that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is being dismantled piece by piece. This is being done by systematically taking away one tool of management at a time. This management system will then fail. This is when the environmentalists move in declaring the failure and the end result will be the further implementation of their agendas of which I have spoken.

My prediction is not one of encouragement. I believe there are not enough people who care enough or are willing to accept the bigger picture, resulting in more of the same. I don’t need to spell out what more of the same is going to look like in 5, 10, 15 or more years. All too often what it takes to get people involved is when it hits directly home. By then it’s too late.

The only hope, is to figure out a way to convince enough people to fight back against this indoctrination that runs counter to everything that is right.

Tom Remington

Capturing Canada Lynx On Trail Cam Video – Maine

As most of the regular readers at the Black Bear Blog recall, a person from Maine has been sending me trail cam pictures collected from a remote area of Maine. Most of those pictures have been of a Canada lynx, with also a picture of a moose and a coyote. Finally, he was able to capture a Canada lynx on the video portion of his trail cam. Below is the compilation of three short videos. I hope you enjoy them and that you’ll express your gratitude to the person sending me the pictures and video. It is for reasons I can’t disclose that this person and location remain anonymous.

Maine: Spiraling Toward A Predator Pit

A predator pit is created when deer populations (speaking of Maine’s deer management problem) have been reduced for various reasons and existing key predators, like coyote, bear and bobcat, can drive those numbers even further into an abyss, perhaps prohibiting a regrowth of the herd.

Admitting you got a predator pit might be as difficult as admitting you’re an alcoholic or a habitual drug user. It seems these days wildlife managers aren’t interested in admitting that predators can be a problem. I have written on this blog before that under ideal conditions, Maine pays little attention to the coyote, bear, bobcat or any other predator that might feast on a whitetail deer, adult or fawn. When populations, such as deer, get out of skew, an abundance of predators can and will create a predator pit, something that can never end and that is a very serious condition.

Before we look into what leads to a predator pit, we must first examine the problem that exists where wildlife managers fail to admit predators can be a problem. Dr. Charles Kay, perhaps the top wildlife ecologist in the U.S. today and an Adjunct Assistant Professor and a Senior Research Scientist at Utah State University, wrote in Petersen’s Hunting Magazine, in August 1993, that research indicated that predators limit ungulate (hoofed animals) populations.

Research in Alaska, British Columbia, Yukon, Alberta and other Canadian Provinces indicates that wolves and other predators, more often than not, limit ungulates.

Further, Mark Hebblewhite, University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, in a 10-year study called, “Predator-Prey Management in the National Park Context: Lessons from a Transboundary Wolf, Elk, Moose and Caribou System“, examines how predators, mainly wolves, affect ungulate herds in and near the Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Hebblewhite warns wildlife mangers of the troubles attempting to manage predators in order to sustain an ungulate population as a food source, i.e. for hunting purposes.

Based on experiences in BNP, I show that wildlife managers face tough choices ahead and must come to terms with the truth that maintaining prewolf ungulate harvest regimes may be a fantasy in postwolf landscapes and, moreover, may be incompatible with ecosystem management.

Hebblewhite refers to “prewolf” and “postwolf” but we can certainly ascertain that coyotes, bears and other large predators can have effects on ungulate populations, especially if allowed to grow in numbers too great and/or other conditions on the ground have greatly reduced deer numbers, i.e. weather, hunting, disease, predation, etc..

George Dovel, Editor of The Outdoorsman, sums up in the Feb-April 2010 Edition, Bulletin Number 38, this same Hebblewhite 10-year study by listing 10 conclusions the study provided.

1. Wolves destroyed 90% of the elk population.
2. Elk slaughter by wolves increased in proportion to the severity of the winters.
3. 60% of the elk that were part-time residents stopped migrating to Banff after wolves arrived.
4. Wolves destroyed 56% of moose populations and nearly eliminated calf recruitment.
5. Wolves decimated woodland caribou, driving numerous herds to extinction.
6. Wolves stole 57% of prey kills by grizzlies.
7. Any attempt to manage ungulates anywhere near pre-wolf numbers is “a fantasy.”
8. Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.
9. To begin replenishing ungulate populations, wolf numbers need to be reduced every year by at least 70%. The reduction has to last until the ungulates recover and must reoccur if ungulates decline.
10. Sportsman wolf hunts utilized to control wolf populations are never effective. (emphasis added)

Readers may want to refer back to these 10 conclusions later on as there are many things that have been determined here that can be carried to predator management in Maine’s Predator Pit.

Let’s examine further. There are currently three studies that have taken place or are still taking place across parts of the Southeastern United States, namely in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. Some or all of these studies are part of a four-year study on the effects coyotes have on deer. The results released so far run contrary to many of the old talking points still used today in most wildlife agencies across the U.S.

For example: Two areas were utilized in the study. One area had very limited coyotes. As a matter of fact, researchers removed 23 coyotes and three bobcats. In a second area, no predators were removed. Just prior to the fall hunting season in this region, researchers determined that the fawn to doe ratios varied tremendously. Where limited or no predators lived, a 0.72 ratio was recorded and in the predator zone that ratio was recorded at 0.07.

In a separate study in South Carolina, researchers followed 60 radio-collared fawns within a 300 square mile area. Only 16 fawns survived past nine weeks, with the majority of fawns being killed within the first 6 weeks. The overwhelming majority of fawn deaths came at the hands of coyotes.

DNA sampling showed that all coyotes kill fawns. Some believe, and the story told, that only the alpha males and females do the killing, the pack cleans up.

An Alabama study revealed that fawns comprised about 27% of a coyote’s diet during the peak fawning period. In addition, trappers were sent into this research area and removed most of the predators, resulting in a doubling of the fawn recruitment ratio.

It becomes quite clear from this work that coyotes munch down on fawns in a big way, limiting fawn recruitment. Much of Maine’s focus in on the winter deer yards. We want to know how many deer are being killed by coyotes during the winter months, etc. It now seems our focus needs to be shifted more towards how many fawns are being killed by predators in general during fawning season. So, how important is fawn recruitment to the sustainability of a whitetail deer herd?

Dr. Kay tells us in very simple terms, “For a stable population [ungulates/deer], recruitment must balance adult mortality”. He also points out a very important factor in how herd numbers are affected by predators.

It must be remembered that wolves limit ungulate numbers by reducing recruitment and increasing adult mortality, not by killing off the game.

If we can reach a point in our understanding of deer and predator relationships that coyotes, bears and bobcats do eat fawns, regardless of whether it’s a bad winter or not, perhaps we can move on. I don’t think anyone is disputing the fact that mortality of deer in winter deer yards is exacerbated by heavy snow depths and extreme cold. What’s going on the rest of the year?

If we now move back to what causes a predator pit, now maybe more of what’s going on in Maine makes sense. A predator pit is created when deer populations (speaking of Maine’s deer management problem) have been reduced for various reasons and existing key predators, like coyote, bear and bobcat, can drive those numbers even further into an abyss, perhaps prohibiting a regrowth of the herd.

Some will argue that Maine’s deer population has been shrinking in Northern, Downeast and portions of Western Maine for several years. That may be so but with the onset of two harsh winters in a row, combined with a growing population of black bears, bobcats and coyote, these areas saw a drastic drop in deer numbers. It happened. Let’s learn from it.

A failure to understand how a ballooned up predator population could effect Maine’s deer population, including attempts to rebuild it, may yet to be seen. This brings us to the question as to whether Maine is spiraling into a predator pit.

Both Dr. Charles Kay and George Dovel describe four basic steps that occur concerning predators and prey, with the fourth step resulting in the dreaded predator pit.

Step 1 – Wildlife experts dispute the notion that predators reduce ungulate populations, sometimes deliberately producing smaller numbers than actually exist. While studies have shown repeatedly that predators limit ungulate numbers, denial that they have any effect is the norm, even when wildlife managers are reducing hunting opportunities as a result. However, the general trend with the denial is to continue with the same hunter opportunities and in some cases increasing tag numbers to boost revenue. This results in a reduction of deer populations, setting up for further drastic implications with back-to-back severe winters.

Step 2 – With Step 1 well underway, all too often animal rights and environmentalist groups are still doing their thing, looking for a lawsuit and a good place for it to happen, that would place limits or complete banning of hunting or trapping of predators. In Maine, consider two recent events. The first was a nastily fought battle over black bear trapping. One fallout from that event was that it put fear and reluctance into the hearts of Maine’s wildlife managers as well as some hunting groups and outfitters, that another battle would ensue. This has resulted in a scaling back of hunting and trapping of black bears in hopes of not drawing attention to what they do, that somehow this will make it all go away. The end result? Perhaps the highest number of black bears in Maine, ever.

The second event is the Canada lynx lawsuit, the result of which has put severe limitations on trapping coyotes. End result? A rapidly growing coyote population that needs to be fed.

Step 3 – Step 1 doesn’t go away as do none of the steps in this if nothing is learned. With lawsuits resulting in a growing predator population and officials still denying predators are a problem, ungulate populations are diminishing along with hunting opportunities. At what rate is difficult to determine because of several other factors.

With the denial still in place, officials will rely on excuses for what is happening. The excuse du jour is most commonly that of reduced habitat. Granted reduced habitat has its effects but as we are witness in Maine, there are plenty of places were good habitat and wintering yards exist with no deer in them. In addition to this, in Hebblewhite’s studies, they determined that increasing habitat had virtually no effect on attempts to increase ungulate populations. Please refer to point 8 above in the 10 conclusions from Hebblewhite’s 10-year study.

Increasing quality habitat for elk in 77.22 square miles caused more – not fewer – elk to be killed by wolves.

Step 4 – The proverbial Predator Pit. Maine may be on the verge, if not already there, of being reduced to a predator pit, with little hope of finding a way out. With everything that has happened, from Step 1 through Step 3, there now exists a situation where predators will determine the population of whitetail deer. Maine can replenish all the habitat they want, they can do dances, pray and cross their fingers for 25 years of Al Gore’s global warming and they can end hunting altogether in their predator pit zones and they will not rebuild any deer herd.

The only way to end this disaster is to first admit what the problems are and then take steps to correct it. Dr. Charles Kay describes the Predator Pit this way:

If ungulate populations have been reduced by severe weather, human over-exploitation, or other causes, wolves and other predators can drive ungulate numbers even lower and maintain them at that level. This condition is called a predator pit and there is no field evidence that ungulates can escape from a predator pit even if hunting is banned, unless wolves and other predators are reduced by direct management actions, i.e. predator control.

It is extremely unfortunate that anyone reaches predator pit status. This could have been prevented if properly prepared; meaning a good understanding of what can happen. Perhaps if Maine had not been sitting on a precipice, the result of poor landowner relations to protect habitat, denial of predator problems, caving in to environmentalists and not standing up for science-backed wildlife management and two bad winters, they wouldn’t be facing this dilemma.

Here Maine sits. What will they do? Have managers reached a point where they are willing to admit coyotes and predators in general need to have active not reactive management programs? I can tell you one thing. Unless those who make the wildlife management decisions are ready to recognize this problem and they want to continue to foist blame on everything but the problem, the Predator Pit will live long and live hard.

Tom Remington

Best Canada Lynx Picture Yet

For those who have been following, for much of late winter I have been posting photographs taken “somewhere” in the deep woods of Maine by a trail camera. Check the “related” links below for many of the other pictures taken.

As you can see from this picture (and time-stamped) date, the snows are slow receding in this location. The capture of the Canada lynx is quite good, although with the very dark background it’s difficult to spot the ear tufts.

Canada Lynx Returns To Canada Making 1200-Mile Trek

Incredibly, a Canada lynx captured in 2003 near Kamloops, British Columbia and released into Southwestern Colorado as part of a lynx reintroduction program, returned to Canada not far from his original capture site. The lynx was killed in a trap.

It is believed that the lynx will follow its favorite food source, the snowshoe hare. The snow shoe hare populations vary greatly and as such the Canada lynx migrates many miles to find its food source. This lynx, having traveled over 1,200 miles to return to Canada almost doubles the recorded distance one has traveled before.

Of course the environmentalists use this occasion to plea for stealing more land away from people in order to create their Yellowstone to Yukon land grab fantasy. Instead, they should focus on why the animal packed up and headed back to Canada. Maybe it knows he’s called a “Canada” lynx. Duh!

Tom Remington

Maine DIFW’s Information On Consent Decree And Snare Banning Not Forthcoming

The Aroostook County Conservation Association and many other volunteers worked tirelessly to gather thousands of signatures to put on a petition that requested that Governor John Baldacci of Maine take immediate action to stop the seeming decimation of the whitetail deer herd that’s taking place in Northern, Eastern and portions of Western Maine. In the absence of Maine Rep. Bernard Ayotte (Caswell), the petition was delivered to the governor by Maine Rep. Peter Edgecomb (Caribou) back in February.

According to a letter composed by Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Deputy Commissioner, Paul Jacques, and dated April 2, 2010, Rep. Bernard Ayotte composed a letter to the department on March 8, 2010 seeking an update as to the status of the State’s application for an Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as it would pertain to trapping in Canada Lynx designated critical habitat. Jacques’ response was varied, covering a plethora of items he lists as all the things his department is doing to stave off the continued destruction of Maine’s whitetail deer herd. Time and space prohibits addressing all issues but I would like to take the time to clarify at least one item that seems to always get left out of discussions. To do this requires some brief history.

In 2006, an organization called the Animal Protection Institute (API) filed a lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), (API v. Martin), claiming essentially that the allowance of trapping in Canada lynx designated critical habitat areas was causing undue harm against the lynx and was a violation of the Endangered Species Act. (This lawsuit and others followed after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reversed a decision and declared the lynx an endangered species in portions of Maine and at the same time defining protected areas of habitat.)

On October 4, 2007 a Consent Decree was reached through the court between MDIFW and API. That decree put limitations on trapping in lynx habitat areas.

The Decree required the Commissioner to impose restrictions on trapping in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11

Keep in mind that the Consent Degree applies to the Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) listed above. In addition to certain restrictions on leg-hold traps, cage traps and killer traps in the ten named zones, the decree banned snaring.

The Commissioner “shall not permit the use of snares for any purpose other than to catch beaver and bear unless and until the [DIFW] obtains an Incidental Take Permit [(ITP) ] explicitly authorizing additional uses of snares.”

It should be noted here that according to the information I have gathered in the past, the Maine Legislature, under the recommendation of the MDIFW Commissioner, Roland “Danny” Martin, banned snaring out of fear that more lawsuits would be brought against the state. I should also like to note the obvious, that should the Maine Legislature so desire, they can overturn or even modify that ban to accommodate efforts by the MDIFW to reduce predator kills on deer and protect the species as they are so mandated to do by law.

Getting back to the letter from Deputy Commissioner Jacques to Rep. Bernard Ayotte, Jacgues makes the following assertion:

Also, and this is important, the first lynx-trapping lawsuit was settled by a Consent Decree in Federal Court that included a ban on snares. The Consent Decree has to remain in place until a recreational trapping ITP is obtained by the slate. This Department does not, therefore, have the authority to restart the snaring program at this time without violating a Federal Court order.

This statement is not entirely true and could be very misleading. Yes, I believe that, as I stated, the Maine Legislature has banned snaring. Under the circumstances of what most Maine sportsmen would classify an emergency situation, if that same sentiment were shared by the MDIFW leadership, they would request that this ban be lifted in the WMDs not designated as lynx critical habitat, being those ten zones named in the court ordered and approved Consent Decree.

If you look at the map of Maine, you’ll see all the Wildlife Management Districts as designated by the MDIFW. I have placed a large “X” over the ten WMDs listed by the Maine court as protected Canada lynx habitat where snaring is banned at least until MDIFW obtains an Incidental Take Permit. MIDFW Deputy Commissioner Jacques states that snaring is banned by court order and that’s not wholly true. The Consent Decree designates only WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11. Certainly those WMDs have severely diminished whitetail deer herds but so does WMDs 7, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and most of 28. These are WMDs in Eastern and Western Maine that suffer from serious deer mortality.

One would think that if the MDIFW had any inclination at all that coyotes and other large predators were having any negative effect on the deer herd, a request would go out to the Maine Legislature seeking a modification to the ban on snaring. We can only assume they don’t think predation is a problem and continue to rely heavily on loss of habitat and Al Gore’s theories on global warming as the only culprits that are destroying Maine’s deer herd.

So now to the Incidental Take Permit. The 2007 Consent Decree prohibited the Commissioner to authorize snaring in WMDs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, until such time as MDIFW obtained this illusive ITP. Even after Judge John A. Woodcock’s ruling in Animal Welfare Institute v. Roland D. Martin, the court ruled that any incidental taking of Canada lynx was not having any affect on the preservation of the Canada lynx. Nothing from the Consent Decree changed and in AWI v. Martin, Judge Woodcock refreshed our memories of the Consent Decree of 2007.

IF&W acted swiftly and on December 4, 2008, the Department adopted an emergency rule imposing further limitations on the manner in which Conibear traps could be legally set in Wildlife Management Districts 1 – 11

And the Animal Welfare Institute clarifies any confusion about whether all of Maine or only designated lynx habitat had been banned from snaring or using “killer” traps, by specifically soliciting the court to include WMD 7 with the other ten WMDs listed.

Following the hearing, AWI expressly asked for injunctive relief that would “(1) prohibit the use of leghold traps on land in the identified lynx WMDs as well as in WMD 7 where . . . lynx have been identified as present and have been trapped.

October 4, 2007, a Consent Decree was issued and MDIFW was told that snares and killer-type traps could not be used in Canada lynx habitat areas “until the [DIFW] obtains an Incidental Take Permit [(ITP) ] explicitly authorizing additional uses of snares.” It’s now April 19, 2010 and Maine appears no closer to obtaining an ITP than it did on October 5, 2007. How long does it take and what kind of serious effort is Maine putting into obtaining this permit?

It is my opinion that MDIFW doesn’t care whether they get a permit or not. It is my opinion the MDIFW does not see predators as any kind of problem that has had but the slightest of negative effects on the whitetail deer herd. All their money is riding on Al Gore and dumping the blame on landowners for cutting trees they own.

How many telephone calls has Roland Martin, MDIFW Commissioner, made to the USFWS pleading his case that Maine has a serious deer shortage problem? Has MDIFW ever heard of or considered utilization of the Endangered Species Act 10j rule? The 10j rule was put in place to make sure that at the cost of trying to protect one species we didn’t extirpate another.

Round and round she goes. Where she stops, nobody knows. If Lady Luck shines on MDIFW, their bets on global warming will pay off and the whitetail deer population in Northern, Eastern and Western Maine will magically reappear.

Tom Remington

Disappearing Act: Maine’s Whitetail Deer Herd

The second coming of Christ may happen before the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will post up on their website the 2009 whitetail deer harvest broken out by towns. However, being the sly and resourceful person that I am (spelled out to mean I know people who know people), I was able to get my hands on a map showing the breakout.

Being that 2005 was a pretty decent year for deer harvest in Maine, I decided to do some comparisons. First, I took a print out of the Maine map showing towns and drew a big black line that would divide the state into two parts. The map to the left shows a shaded area that depicts most of Northern and Eastern Maine and also separated into 7 zones for ease of counting and making comparisons. I compared 2005′s count with 2009′s.

To do this wasn’t easy as all I had to work with were two maps and very tiny print. I will not vouch that the numbers I have are 100% accurate but I will attest that they are in the ballpark enough to realize Maine has a very serious problem. Essentially, I broke the entire area I wanted to count into 7 zones and counted each zone.

Within the entire shaded area that encompasses Northern and Eastern Maine, the 2009 deer harvest was 1,499 deer – that’s pretty pathetic. This compares with 2005 that was 5,067. My calculations put that at right around a 70% reduction in deer harvest.

Let’s look at this closer, by using my zones.

Zone 1 – 2009 = 117 deer harvested. 2005 = 634
Zone 2 – 2009 = 322 deer harvested. 2005 = 1,273
Zone 3 – 2009 = 205 deer harvested. 2005 = 352
Zone 4 – 2009 = 257 deer harvested. 2005 = 825
Zone 5 – 2009 = 173 deer harvested. 2005 = 521
Zone 6 – 2009 = 199 deer harvested. 2005 = 451
Zone 7 – 2009 = 226 deer harvested. 2005 = 1,011

There’s one thing about the present situation. Next year the harvest shouldn’t be such a drastic drop. After all, nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Other things outdoor sportsmen should be aware of. The deer herd is virtually gone. This means there will be a lot of hungry coyotes and black bears roaming about. Expect to find both of these predators infiltrating your backyard and possibly posing a risk to you, your children, pets and livestock. The coyotes will also consume all the snowshoe hare, the prime diet of the Canada lynx, and the lynx will begin vacating the state. Generally speaking, some lynx will hang around and starve to death, some will resort to cannibalism but the majority will just make their way back north or wherever they can find food and habitat suitable for survival. This is a natural phenomenon but I’m sure trappers will be blamed for the disappearance of the lynx.

When bears come out of hibernation, they are hungry. It isn’t long thereafter that bears will target the new fawns. Judging that there will be no real fawns added to the deer herd in Northern and Eastern Maine, will result in hungry bears. Be prepared for that. Take down your bird feeders but I suggest you take more precautions than that. If you live in bear country, keep an eye on livestock and your children.

I’m also wondering if those at MDIFW see this as a real problem? I assume not in that no real action has been taken that would indicate any kind of emergency situation. Being that an “emergency” ruling opened the open water fishing season early (not sure the emergency) taking more fish must be more important than saving a deer herd. The trapping season should have been extended and snaring allowed at least in areas not designated as protected habitat for the lynx. None of this was done.

The bear season needs to be adjusted to reduce the number of bears that will result in fewer fawns taken in the spring. That doesn’t look like it will happen out of fear that the animal rights groups will sue. As we can see now, that fear has driven a deer herd to extinction and will chase lynx out of Maine, to name some of what has happened.

It amazes me that the fish and game department thinks nothing of completely destroying a predator that is bugging some fish in a pond but does virtually nothing to save a deer herd except hope Al Gore is right and tell everyone to stop complaining because they have an open season on coyotes.

Oh, and I almost forget! MDIFW doesn’t have any money to do anything with. Too bad they spend all our license money on things that have no benefit to fish and game.

Some things simply don’t make any sense.

Tom Remington

Eastern Coyote/Wolf Hybrid Shows Up Where Canada Lynx Was

The below picture is a great one. It was taken this morning somewhere in the deep wilds of Maine. If you will take notice, the setting is the same as some of the Canada lynx trail cam pictures I had posted earlier here, here, here, here, here.

The owner of the trail cam said that a lynx walked in front of all three trail cams and never set off the shutter. However, 4 or 5 coyote/wolf hybrids and a fisher showed up.

Notice the setting where the above and below pictures were taken. Clearly the same spot.

More Photos Of Canada Lynx In Maine

These are two more pictures to go along with the others I’ve posted here, here, here and here.

Another Look At That Canada Lynx Taken in Maine

For those who have missed out or that are interested, I have been posting some photos of a Canada lynx taken with a trail camera by a person who lives in Maine. All of these photos were taken from the same spot or right nearby. Links to the previous photos can be found here, here and here.

Me Likey The Lynx

Here’s another shot of a Canada lynx taken in the proximity of where the previous photos of the lynx I have posted. You can find those shots here and here.

In this photo, please note the large feet, great for mastering the great snow depths. If you look closely, you’ll also noticed the all black tip of the tail. Some confuse a lynx and bobcat. The lynx has black tufts sticking up off the tip of his ears, large splayed feet and an all black tip of the tail. The bobcat lacks the tufts, doesn’t have the obvious large feet and although the tail tip is black, it also has white as well.

The Lynx Returns

Yesterday I posted a picture of a Canada lynx captured on a trail camera. With a little “coaxing” the lynx returned to the same site and got his picture taken again. This is somewhere in the deep wilderness of Maine.

Next Page »