Eating Wolf Scat And Howling At The Moon

It was Thomas Jefferson who once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” How true! Evidently in Jefferson’s wisdom, he understood people of good conscience. It was perhaps a bit of a rallying cry to the people that remaining silent on issues was good recipe for tyranny, spelled out as loss of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

People of good conscience had an agenda foisted upon them when wolves were released into the Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. Foisted because I believe that the entire notion was fraudulent, keeping valuable information from the people and misrepresenting the ultimate goals of those behind the debacle.

I read some place recently that it is part of the character of good conscience people to politely sit by, having no desire to take up opposition or make public spectacles of themselves through protests and verbal combativeness. And as such, one has only to ask, how far can these people of good conscience be pushed before they begin to push back?

When the grass roots Tea Party movement began, most on the left couldn’t rationally deal with it. It must have come as a big shock to many when the Tea Party activists took to the streets in copius numbers, rallying fellow Americans to their cause. After all, street protests are the fingerprint of the liberal left. Still, the left cannot and will not come to grips with the concept that those good conscience people will push back when pushed too far.

After 8 years of George W. Bush, Americans wanted something different. They swallowed the campaign rhetoric of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and yet refused to listen to the facts of the man’s past. One year later, eyes have begun to open to the realization this isn’t the change they wanted. They are pushing back. We became witnesses to this thrust in New Jersey, Virginia and most recently Massachusetts. The people, good conscience people, revolted against what is being crammed down their throats. Remaining silent appears to no longer be an option.

It is acutely insulting when the good conscience people’s president appears before the nation and essentially tells them they are too stupid to understand what the health care reform bill is about. His excuse was he failed to explain it to you and me.

The good conscience people also see with their own two eyes when there is hypocrisy and double standards. When George W. Bush was president and the opposition party dissented, it was declared one of the grandest exhibitions of American patriotism. With that same opposition party now in control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, dissent is wicked and evil, very much unpatriotic.

The good conscience people may be passive and difficult to motivate but they are not so stupid that they cannot see what is before them. Today, Charles Krauthammer writes about a great peasant revolt, pointing a finger at those on the left for ignoring what the people want, citing the push back by voters in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts.

Today, dissent from the governing orthodoxy is nihilistic malice. “They made a decision,” explained David Axelrod, “they were going to sit it out and hope that we failed, that the country failed” — a perfect expression of liberals’ conviction that their aspirations are necessarily the country’s, that their idea of the public good is the public’s, that their failure is therefore the nation’s……………………….
For liberals, the observation that “the peasants are revolting” is a pun. For conservatives, it is cause for uncharacteristic optimism. No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail.

Good conscience people don’t care if it’s a liberal or conservative issue. When something strikes them beside the head, if it’s large enough to cause a big enough impact, they will push back.

Fifteen years of water under the bridge, the wolf debate in the West is no closer to a resolve. There is however, a pushing back, a peasant revolt, if you will, far from reaching a “great” peasant revolt. It was nearly one year ago that I warned of “wolf wars“. The wars would be the result of the wolf advocates refusing to back down from their unreasonable demands about protecting the gray wolf, cramming down the throats of people the impacts from too many wolves they didn’t want nor thought they were getting.

Much of the political and social atmosphere that exists in wolf reintroduction country can be attributed to the actions of an unrelenting group that cares nothing at all about what the good conscience people of the area want. These wolf advocates have destroyed their support in the battle for public opinion by representing themselves as the authorities that know better what the people need than the people.

Where once they had their way, the good conscience people are pushing back. The quiet and hard working people have had enough. More and more people are seeing before their eyes the results of too many wolves, far more than the good conscience people were promised.

Groups are organizing to fight back. The good conscience people were willing to have a few wolves in their woods but not at the expense they are now realizing. It didn’t have to be this way but this was the decision the wolf advocates chose. It’s the path they now must walk.

We are also now seeing actions being taken by the border states around the wolf reintroduction area. Utah wants a law forbidding wolves anywhere in the state. Why is that? Has that state’s attitude been influenced by what they can see going on in their neighbor states? They are pushing back. Had the wolf lovers backed off and listened to what the people wanted, it might not have come to this. For wolf advocates, this is a serious blow to their efforts and a somber loss of what little respect they had.

With the refusal of the wolf advocate groups and wildlife officials to listen to others, to hear what the people want, the good conscience people, they face a rude awakening. To scoff at the good conscience people telling them the only way to contract diseases from wolves is to eat the wolves feces, is a direct insult of their intelligence. The good conscience people will not tolerate this kind of tyrannical rule. They are pushing back. They will tell them to “eat wolf scat and go howl at the moon”!

Tom Remington

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

Are Idaho Wildlife Biologists “Really That Dumb”?

The January 2010 issue of The Outdoorsman is out and full of tons of information about the ongoing debate in the Idaho, Montana, Wyoming areas where it has been found that introduced wolves are infected with tapeworms that can cause cystic hydatid disease. These worms can result in troubles with wild ungulate populations, they can be carried by domestic dogs, sheep, foxes, etc. and eventually end up causing health risk problems for humans, possibly resulting in death.

In this latest issue, editor George Dovel wrote an article titled, “IDFG “White Paper” Response to Concerns About Wolves Introducing New Strain of Hydatid Disease”. This addresses the fact that Idaho Fish and Game officials ignored warnings from the Centers for Disease Control, as well as evidence on the ground, and played down any possible serious health risks from this disease.

Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Chip Corsi emailed employees that he directly supervises and said:

“Some of you may have seen the latest from George Dovel’s “The Outdoorsman”. Based on Mark’s (IDFG veterinarian Mark Drew) assessments (attached), human health risk is quite low, provided you avoid consuming things like canid feces and uncooked organs; and I think suggests Dovel’s interpretation is more than a bit sensationalized. If you are handling wolves or coyotes, wear gloves. Risk to humans does not appear to be any greater than with other parasites found in wildlife that we, and hunters/trappers, routinely handle.”

It is highly laughable that a paid professional would in his attempt to scoff at Dovel’s concern for human health and safety, state that Dovel was being “more than a bit sensationalized”. This comes right after telling his employees, in his own being “more than a bit sensationalized”, that the only way you can be at risk of contracting hydatid disease is to eat “canid feces”.

This is of course absurd and should be exposed for what it is. For more on the disease, the risks and what you can do to reduce chances of infection, follow these links, here, here, here. I also plan to cover this issue more at a later date. Stay tuned.

Back to George Dovel’s column. He states that he has received numerous emails from veterinarians about Corsi’s comments about eating wolf scat and they want to know if Idaho Fish and Game biologists are that dumb? That’s a good question. Are they?

Maybe Dovel answers that question in a separate article in the same January issue. As is Dovel’s signature of writing, he goes to lengths to present readers with the facts about hydatid disease, covering some of its history, actual cases, how they were treated and on and on, supplying also links to where readers can get more facts and information.

His frustration begins to show as he points out the wildlife officials efforts to, not only downplay the potential risks to humans but efforts to cover up the facts. Does any of this make any sense? Are wildlife officials really that dumb?

Interestingly, Dovel includes a brief “editor’s note” at the conclusion of his article.

(NOTE: A comparison of these statements from medical doctors whose agenda is to protect private citizens from disease, with the statements from wildlife officials whose agenda is to protect wolves and their parasites from private citizens, is revealing. – ED)

As I said, I think Dovel answered the query of the veterinarians in making that statement. One would assume (arguable) that dumbness would not permit a wildlife biologist to land a job or perhaps even get a degree. From that perspective then it must be mostly about agendas, the agenda to protect the wolves at all cost.

But let’s not point a finger at just Chip Corsi and IDFG veterinarian Mark Drew. Even Ed Bangs, head wolf recovery person for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has made every effort to protect his valuable wolves, seemingly at the expense of public safety. He’s gone so far as to scoff at and demonize those who are attempting to educate the public about the presence of disease, that happens to be carried by introduced wolves.

I personally find it revealing the actions taken by the collective “wolf advocates”; very defensive while downplaying the risks and demonizing those like George Dovel. I have covered this story since it first came to light about two-thirds of the wolves found to be laced with worms in Idaho and Montana. I’ve communicated with George Dovel, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Charles Kay, Will Graves, as well as others, and done a lot of reading and research. Not one of these people or the heads of several sportsman’s groups have, from what I have seen, used this opportunity to exploit wolves and demand they be killed to solve the problem.

To copy Dovel’s comment, let me say that a comparison of statements and actions by wildlife officials and those of scientists and outdoor sportsmen groups, is very revealing.

Dr. Valerius Geist said it this way.

The pro and contra machinations pertaining to wolves are of little concern here. What is important is that people living or recreating in areas with hydatid disease take precautions, while steps have to be undertaken to eradicate the disease.

Would you rather listen to Dr. Geist’s advice or that of a Idaho Fish and Game supervisor saying there is no danger unless you eat wolf &^@#?

Yes, it is quite revealing!

Tom Remington

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

Are Some Animal Lovers Caught In An Evolutionary Time Warp?

I’m sure some would argue that man is not more intelligent or more evolved than the common beasts that inhabit the globe. As much as we have this urge to sometimes place man’s collective intelligence as being less than that of, say a cow, for the most part that is not true. Some of my best friends are brighter than a cow. Well, let’s say at least a slug.

There are two theories as to why we are here on this planet. One is Evolution and of course the other Creation. Which ever one you pick, I think it intelligent rationalization to claim that animals where here first. So, does that give them something over us? Preferential rights? First dibs? I called shotgun?

Let’s take a look. If man “evolved” from animals (take your pick which one), one would assume and some studies suggest that part of that evolution was the expansion of intelligent thinking. I know! I know! Stop thinking about Washington for just a few minutes, Okay?

Could we also rationalize that over those how many millions of years as man evolved, so did his ability to think, driven by an unexplained (evolved) desire to learn? As man’s intelligence grew, at what point did man come to realize he was brighter than a sheep or a worm? I said to forget about Washington. Come on, man! Let’s work to evolve this discussion.

Once man evolved to a point he discovered he had something all the other animals didn’t, a brain developed enough to think and reason, I wonder how many of them believed these animals could think as they did? Did this evolved man begin to believe that animals had “rights” or had rights evolved yet?

Creationism is much simpler and perhaps one of the reasons I gravitate toward that belief; aside from the fact I would rather want to be part of a plan devised by a Power much bigger than any of us can understand and to be “special”, rather than evolved from some nasty, poop flinging monkey. How many times do I have to tell you to stop thinking about Washington?

According to the teachings of the Bible, which for those who don’t know is where Creationism comes from, God created the planets and put animals on Earth. Then in his loneliness He created Adam and then Eve, called it all good and said, “Hey Adam! By the way. I give you and all your ancestors “dominion” of the animals and the land, etc. that I’m giving you.” Probably He could have appeased the environmentalists (which he didn’t create. They are a mutation.) if He would have said, “And by the way, I expect you to do the best job you can in taking care of all these goodies!” You know, clean air, clean water!

God’s plan is perfect, or so I believe but I’m not so sure about Evolution. You see, when we speak of evolution, in our smugness, our evolved intelligence, we make the assumption that this evolving is all for the better. Evolution could be defined as: “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.”

As such these processes seem to indicate an actual devolution, a genetic drift, by some of the human species. If man once had a desire to evolve to be something smarter than an orangutan, there now seems to be just as big a desire to devolve to a level equal to that of the elected species these mutants have fallen in love with. An argument could be made that as man evolved and learned how to love, some perhaps never evolved far enough to understand that those feelings of love they had were meant to be toward another human and not another animal. This is the only rational explanation I can come up with why some either less evolved or once evolved and now devolving people place the animals they love on an equal plane with themselves.

The less evolved and/or slowly devolving humans, in their erosion of intelligent and rational thought, think that those of us more evolved who understand our role as the dominate, more intelligent species, want to destroy all these creatures because we can. To them it is all or nothing; animals are either equal to humans or evil man just wants them all dead. This is undeveloped thinking. Evidently this evolution thing doesn’t happen for everyone all at the same time. I can’t help myself. They must first go through Congress before they can evolve enough to be a productive part of our society. There, I said it!

If you see or know someone who exhibits this behavior, understand that perhaps it is only those who have been caught in some kind of evolutionary time warp. I’m not sure I am evolved enough to know whether they can ever escape such a warp, as I may be in one of my own.

Stay away from Washington. It might be a black hole.

Tom Remington

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

Wolves Can Magically Create A Garden Of Eden

This story deserves the recognition of a Black Bear Blog Golden Horse Excrement Award. (I don’t just give these to anybody.)

Wolves are such a wonderful animal. As a matter of fact, they are so wonderful they actually have been given “supernatural powers” just as Ed Bangs, head wolf recovery man for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, declared the other day. Of course Bangs was referring to us nut jobs who think wolves need strict management and control. He thinks we are motivated by fear.

Daniel Licht, a wildlife biologist thinks wolves are so supernatural they can magically transform our National Parks and other wild places into gardens of Eden. His theory is that if a park has too many deer or elk, just bring in a few wolves, tell them to “stay” and then give them a grocery list of how many deer they must kill in order to “balance” that particular ecosystem. And we mustn’t forget that these magical wolves, as intelligent as they are, will only select out the weak and sickly deer. I’m sure if given proper instructions, the wolves can select and kill the best breeding deer in that park as well.

Such wonderful animals these wolves. For the life of me I can’t understand why settlers from years gone by would have wanted to kill off all the wolves. Puzzling really. I guess this is just an example of how man, as cavemanish as he was, didn’t understand the wolf and hadn’t a clue as to its magical powers to transform landscapes in natural items of beauty.

Got too many elk? Import a few wolves and within a short period of time, your state and city parks can be magically transformed into vast stretches of land needing no management or care-taking. The wolves will do it.

If we ignorant humans had only learned this wonderful feature that comes as standard equipment on all wolves a long time ago, think of the millions of dollars we could have saved by employing wolves. As a matter of fact, I think Licht’s ideas are so good, reasonable and certainly backed by science (much like global warming) that dumping a few wolves in other places across the country should take high priority. I was thinking four wolves in Central Park, three on the Boston Common, a couple at the Washington Mall and certainly at least a half dozen in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. That should turn those places into a magical kingdom. Ah, the power of the wolf.

I hope most of you have figured out by now that I’m kidding. However, Daniel Licht is not. He actually is advocating that we import wolves into areas where deer and elk have overgrazed. He actually thinks if you used birth control and a few waves of the magic wand, wolves will stay put and kill off the unwanted deer and elk that are eating too much vegetation. What could possibly go wrong?

Licht’s idea is a reflection of the absolute nonsense being thrown around as science today. If this is the trash being taught in our schools, they need to be shut down. He says that the good things the wolves will do far outweigh the bad things. In all honesty, I know of no good things a wolf can do but there is a laundry list of all the negatives that such a radical and preposterous idea would create.

First off, you can’t control wolves. Just the thought that somehow you could convince a couple of wolves to stay in one area for the sole purpose of killing a few deer and elk is insane. Second, birth control is not effective and has never been proven to work. Toss that theory out the window.

Third, wolves carry disease. We already have found out that two-thirds of all the wolves tested in Idaho and Montana are carrying worms that can cause hydatid disease. They can carry rabies, neospora caninum, brucellosis, the list is a mile long.

Fourth, wolves have no place living near where humans live and frequent. Perverted thinking allows for a chance for humans to “view” wolves at work. Oooooooh, it’s sooooooooooooooo natural you know!

You know, I could go on and on but it is a waste of my time. This is the most ridiculous proposal I have ever heard in my life and any scientists (real ones) who would actually entertain this notion belong in a nut house.

Importing a small number of animals “as a stewardship tool … is counter to 100 years of wildlife management in America,” he says. “It’s going to take a different paradigm” – as well as a fair amount of money to build fences, attach tracking collars and provide contraceptives to keep the wolves from spreading to places where they’re not wanted.

Give me a break!

Tom Remington

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

Ed Bangs, USFWS: “They’re No Big Deal” re: Wolves

Last week Ed Bangs, head wolf recovery guru for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said that the decline in moose populations in the Yellowstone National Park area was due to climate change and that his reintroduction of wolves has nothing to do with it. He also was quoted as saying that the presence of wolves worldwide, was “no big deal”. In the context in which that statement was made, let me post it here as it appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune as of January 21, 2010.

“People who don’t like them [wolves] give them supernatural powers. It’s that way all over the world,” Bangs says. “In reality, they’re no big deal.”

That’s really the ultimate in ignorant statements, especially coming from a professional working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It also appears I’m not alone in that assessment.

Tony Mayer, owner/administrator for Save Our Elk, is challenging Bangs on his statement that wolves are “no big deal”. He is asking if Bangs intends to stand by that statement and gives us all a list of reasons the presence of wolves may be a bigger deal than Bangs or others are willing to admit.

Consider the impact to an ecosystem that was previously untouched by wolves (prior to 1994). Consider that this same Rocky Mountain Wilderness area now has a top-tier predator thrust into its midst. The predator has experienced phenomenal growth and currently exceeds 2,000 to 3,000 wolves depending whose numbers you believe. This predator is a borne killer and hunts 365 days per year. It is responsible for killing 6,000 and 12,000 elk monthly. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal?”

Consider that Elk/Calf recruitment has plummeted to record lows in many areas where these wolves roam and is now below replenishment levels. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal?”

Consider that wolves are primarily responsible for rapid spread of parasites and diseases within their range. These parasites Neospora Caninum and Echinococcus granulose were largely undetected prior to the introduction of wolves and now are infecting other wildlife and livestock at alarming rates. The impact of these 2,000 to 3,000 wolves exponentially spreading disease within our borders is catastrophic, and will forever impact our game, domestic livestock and potentially to humans. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal??”

Consider the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been wasted and that wolves are continuing to cost our government and the citizens of our states. Do you still want to stand by your statement “In reality, they’re no big deal?”

And being as Mr. Bangs declared that wolves worldwide were no big deal, I can add to this list more than time would allow, the negative impact wolves have had on people’s lives. Mayer points out what is taking place in and around the Yellowstone area. Most of us are uninformed about the long and sordid history of wolves worldwide and the death and destruction to humans and their property caused by wolves. In America we scoff and claim such stories to be myths, as does Bangs in his own ignorance, much due to the indoctrination we have all had beat into our brains since birth. He was only one step away from referencing Little Red Riding Hood and the Big Bad Wolf.

No, the sky is not falling or the world coming to an end. Real wildlife conservationists are interested in first protecting the health and safety of humans and then their property. Where wildlife populations once were sparse and in need of help, hunters’ money from license fees etc. brought back to the Yellowstone and many other areas of this country, bountiful and healthy species of game and wildlife. It is irresponsible to sit by and allow ignorance, driven by special interest groups, to destroy this investment.

Ed Bangs works for all taxpayers. If he honestly believes that an overblown population of a ravaging predator, known to carry diseases, is “no big deal”, then it is time that USFWS found a replacement for him.

Tom Remington

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

USFWS Wolf Chief Blames Moose Loss In Yellowstone On Climate Disruption

Is this a first? Climate disruption? Because the theory behind man-made global warming has been proven a fraud, has our liberal press created a new buzz word to explain away the errors, fraud, conspiracy and manipulations of “We the People”? Climate disruption? We’ve gone from global warming to climate change and now it’s climate disruption. Is that a catch-all phrase that we can use for any excuse to place blame and pass off responsibility?

I can certainly understand how an individual, who stakes his entire life and reputation on bringing wolves back into the Yellowstone National Park area and Central Idaho, would react so emotionally when he hears that a legislator in Utah wants to kill all his wolves trying to enter the state of Utah.

Bangs is supposed to be a professional, a salaried employee of the Department of Interior/United States Fish and Wildlife Service, one whose salary is paid by the taxpayers of this country. You would expect a better response from a professional scientist.

“People who don’t like them [wolves] give them supernatural powers. It’s that way all over the world,” Bangs says. “In reality, they’re no big deal.”

The tone of the article leads a reader to think that the presence of wolves is no big deal. He seems to blow off and almost ridicule anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his outdated information on wolves. His reference to people “giv[ing] them supernatural powers” is almost a Farley Mowatt followers response. I wonder if he also believes wolves only eat mice and tiny rodents?

But in reality, did Bangs refer to the loss of moose in the Yellowstone area to “climate disruption” or did the author of the article do it? You decide.

Wolves have contributed to a decline of elk in and around Yellowstone, but moose loss is probably more due to climate disruption. “Moose can’t handle heat at all,” Bangs says. “They just lie around and don’t store body fat.”

Notice the quotations mark don’t come in until after the use of “climate disruption” and the quiet admission by the author (I wonder where that information came from?) that wolves have contributed to elk reduction. It does however seem to fit with the quoted response by Bangs saying moose can’t handle the heat – assuming he is referring to global warming. He is also saying that moose do nothing but lie around in this “climate disruption” and die. And, according to the same article, Bangs said that wolves are only a problem with some livestock.

Bangs’ comments are not sitting well with many wildlife and outdoor sporting organizations. It has been slow coming but state wildlife officials in Idaho and Montana are now coming around to admit that wolves are destroying their elk, deer and moose herds far more than they thought they would. In some places, the effect is serious, posing a real threat to elk, deer and moose herds.

Don Peay of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife in Utah asked Bangs:

I would like some scientist to explain to me how Utah – which has a hotter climate than Wyoming, Idaho and Montana whether there is global warming, climate disruption, etc – is seeing a totally different trend in Moose, than is being experienced in the wolf inhabited areas of WY, MT, and ID.

If Climate disruption is the reason that moose are declining in the Yellowstone region – it is so hot the moose populations just lie around and don’t put on fat reserves – then why are Utah moose populations increasing significantly during this same climate change phenomenon ? it would seem to me that if heat was the problem, then Utah’s moose populations should be even in greater decline than the greater Yellowstone area.

Toby Bridges, a hunter and activist who administers Lobo Watch, had a much more emotional response to Bangs’ comments. I won’t share all of them here but here’s some of what Bridges had to say:

Sportsmen here fully realize that growing wolf numbers have destroyed Yellowstone’s great elk herd, not Global Warming. Likewise, elk herds all along the mountains of western Montana and northern Idaho are being decimated by out of control wolf numbers. And when addressing this issue, the best you can do is is to toss out an “Oh well” attitude in the linked article, trying to use smoke and mirrors and a list of other factors to try covering up the real problem – your parasite carrying kill crazy wolves.

So while many sportsman’s groups in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Oregon and Washington have united together to work in a proactive way to convince the courts to allow the states to manage wolves at a level that will provide a better balance between predator and prey, Bangs is still preaching the “wolves aren’t the problem” mantra. Our tax dollars at work I suppose.

Tom Remington

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

Sportsman’s Alliance Of Maine Obtains Email Addresses Via FOIA

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife in order to obtain around 100,000 email addresses of those who bought hunting and fishing licenses online. As a result, it has set off a firestorm across certain channels of the hunting and fishing outdoor world in Maine. At issue is privacy and unwanted SPAM from SAM as well as the ability of any other individual or group to obtain the same list. Potentially, this could open a can of worms.

According to WMTW-TV website, SAM obtained the emails to send out information about coyotes. SAM has become very active of late in working to get all hunters involved in doing what they can to stop the further decline of the whitetail deer herd in Maine, which is suffering greatly due to many factors; poor management, severe winters, loss of habitat, overblown populations of predators, among other things. One aspect is to encourage and promote the hunting of coyotes.

One would have to recognize and appreciate SAM being all agog to fire up the licensed hunters and get them involved but I have to seriously question the decision to mount an email campaign using emails obtained, 1). through FOIA request, and; 2). using emails from fellow hunters without their approval. These are the guys you want help from. It’s an odd way to go about it.

We all hate SPAM and some are obsessed with it. It think it safe to say that most hunters are not very thrilled with the prospects of what can come from this move by SAM. First, it immediately creates bad public relations. Second, it forms distrust. Many hunters are asking whether SAM will resell the list to other agencies. This all comes at a time when hunters need to unite in an effort. I think SAM is attempting to do this but they failed to grasp what would happen. Third, if SAM, which had to go through the Maine Attorney Generals Office, can obtain this list, anyone else can. That fact in and of itself, has angered a lot of people.

In my opinion, here is what SAM needs to do. Immediately issue a public apology. Promise the list will not be used and that they will work with the Attorney General and MDIFW in order to get the law changed to protect those emails. I don’t believe this was the intent of FOIA. This only makes sense. MDIFW has promoted their MOSES online license purchasing program for quite some time. It is time and money saving for MDIFW. If perspective license buyers can’t be confident their email information and perhaps other personal information, cannot be safeguarded, it will seriously detract from the program. This has to be done immediately.

Once SAM has done what it can to minimize the damage they have caused, then they can choose other routes to get their message out. SAM has a website that needs updating to become more user friendly and interactive. They can wage an opt in/opt out email campaign for sending out newsletters, etc. and seeking new members. They can provide needed updates on their website along with providing RSS feeds so other websites, including blogs and forums, can post SAM’s feed so their readers have easy access.

Press releases can also be generated from the website and sent to all media outlets across the state. If SAM is wondering how well this might work, then just take a lot at how quickly and widespread the news traveled about them confiscating emails. I rest my case.

We live in an electronic age. With the rapid growth of the Internet, lack of knowledge can set businesses and organizations back in their progress as was the case for SAM. On the same token, knowledge can advance their cause. They now need to mend some fences and get with the times. The days of “stealing” email addresses to send unsolicited information is not only outdated but is extremely bad business. SAM needs to become cutting edge in this regard.

Tom Remington

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

Intellectuals And Wildlife Management

There exists a divide between the “educated” wildlife biologist and the hunter, fisherman, trapper and outdoors person. It is unfortunate that this divide prohibits better wildlife management. Let’s call the divide what it is. On the one side you have the college educated intellectual who can prove most anything he or she wants to using data and computer modeling. Generally speaking, these intellectuals look down their noses at the average “Joe” who spends far more time in the field than the biologist. And of course on the other side of the divide, is the outdoor sportsmen, some of whom have spent countless hours and years witnessing first hand what’s going on in the woods. One would think putting the two together would be like dipping your chocolate into the jar of peanut butter. Such is not the case.

Today, Thomas Sowell writes:

Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas– the intellectuals– have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on net balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.

Sowell’s article of course is about the impact that intellectuals have had on the world’s societies – good and bad. Ideas are great and God only knows where we would be without those who can produce ideas. But as Sowell points out, only time can tell whether those ideas are for the better or the worse.

Wildlife management these days is born in the field of academia, where once it seemed more important to rely on the experience of the man in the field. With an ever shifting to the left within our educational industry, wildlife biologists are coming fresh out of school indoctrinated with a host of ideas, many of them idealistic and not grounded in sound scientific facts or matching what exists on the ground. With the passing of each successive generation it seems we are witness to snotty-nosed graduates bucking up against seasoned outdoorsmen. Instead of the forces working against each other, they should be working together as both sides can contribute valuable resources.

There is an organization in Idaho that has a website called Save Our Elk. Their mission is to educate and draw attention to the facts of what is really taking place in the field. Their goal is simple – saving elk. As part of their strategy, they send out emails containing news, stories, studies and just about anything to inform and educate. I am privileged to receive those emails.

It seems that one of the leaders of Save Our Elk, Tony Mayer, received an email from a professor at the University of Idaho, who works for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, requesting that Mr. Mayer remove her from his “repulsive email campaign”. As Mr. Mayer pointed out, sometimes the truth is hard to take.

What is most disturbing and yet telltale about this action/reaction is that an academic of fish and wildlife, would be so close-minded to other thoughts and information being collected from those who spend so much time in the outdoors. Bear in mind that this person is responsible for some of the education and teaching that our young wildlife biologists are getting. Dare we question why these young biologists choose not listen to the crusty old veterans of the woods?

One gentleman responded to the professor’s lack of interest in “repulsive” facts this way:

Even if you don’t like, or disagree with, the message in the article, I would think that a mature, curious scientist, who had an interest in the “interface” between science and policy – particularly in the very area of her expertise -, would actively seek communication with an existing, robust, substantial community of interest, such as Idaho hunters. The opposite appears to be the case.

Steve Alder, President of Idaho for Wildlife, reminded his members that it took two years from the time that a seasoned outdoorsmen began informing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game that the severe winter of 1996-1997 had destroyed the state’s elk herd in the Lolo Region, until they were willing to admit he was right.

This same man informed the IDFG in the Spring of 1997 that they had lost over 50%,(Approximately 10,000) of the elk in the Lolo zone alone due to the horrible winter of 96-97 and he was quickly enlighten how wrong he was and that the elk had suffered an average winter kill and a warm thaw had saved the elk that year. This man was led to the computer where he was shown in the monitor that the elk were doing just fine.

The same has held true in reports of elk and mule deer being destroyed by wolves and other large predators. These people are valuable eyes on the front of where it all happens. This divide between idealistic computer modeling and true to life events in the field needs to disappear before more damage is done.

Alder also quotes one of those experienced outdoor sportsmen and what he had to say about wildlife management.

The late legendary Montana and Idaho Cowboy, outfitter, Outdoor writer and gun expert Elmer Keith, (1899-1984), in his biography, “Hell I was there”, (1979), wrote, “Here in this Country, (Salmon, ID region), Our biologists labor under the delusion that the predators kill off the old, crippled and sick game which could never be farther from the truth.” “These ecologist have never seen a mule deer out in the crusted deep snow up to its belly as it floundered along and a pack of coyotes or wolves crowding along beside eating the poor animal alive.” “First the guts hurtle out and they eat them up and pull them out.” “Finally the poor thing goes down and they literally eat him alive with no attempt to kill him clean first.” “With proper management, game can be brought back but it requires proper management by men who have lived with the game and understand it and not by some biologist with a four-year degree from college alone.”

Idaho is not alone when it comes to problems with wildlife management. Maine is currently in the midst of a major whitetail deer problem. Hunters have been complaining for several years that portions of the state didn’t have any deer. I think the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) agreed that in the northern, eastern and portions of western Maine, the deer herd was struggling. What I think they didn’t realize is just how bad it was. But those in the field knew. Is this a case of this same divide causing the demise of Maine’s deer herd because the “intellectuals” didn’t want to listen?

I remember that it was right after the deer hunting season in Maine, December 2006, when I first was notified by some disgruntled hunters in Northern Maine. They wanted to start a petition drive asking MDIFW to close down the deer hunting season until the herd had been rebuilt. Whether that would work is really immaterial. This issue is that the hunters already knew there was a problem and MDIFW hadn’t admitted it.

As a matter of fact, MDIFW wants to lay the biggest part of the blame for the decimation of the herd on the two back-to-back severe winters – the winters of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. As you can see, the complaints I began receiving from unhappy hunters was prior to those two severe winters.

We can point fingers and spread the blame everywhere but it won’t do much good until we can shrink the divide. I have written about this before. The hunters, the trappers, the fishermen and everyone who ventures afield have to be the eyes and ears of the fish and game. Fish and game has to be accepting of this.

We can’t have academia refusing to consider facts because they find them “repulsive”, or probably more accurately defined as in disagreement with one’s ideals.

Intellectuals float ideas, some good and some bad. Those in the field come armed with what they see. Meshing these two together could be quite productive.

Tom Remington

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

When Liars Lie To Liars

It’s laughable in some ways, sick justice in another. But when you witness liars being lied to by someone they lied to to begin with and the liar lied back in order to capture a vote, the liars are mad and making up more lies. Does any of that make any sense? Probably as much as Jamie Rappaport Clark’s drivel in the Washington Post does.

(The photo to the left shows what you could be saving by not listening to people like Jamie Rappaport Clark.)

The sick injustice comes upon seeing the environmental nut jobs, like Defenders of Wildlife whom Clark is joined at the hip with, become prey to the onslaught of Obama’s lies that the rest of the nation has had to endure since taking office. How you like it?

We all heard and I wrote about Obama’s promise to “restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act.” The environmentalists broke out in a unified orgasm, licking each others drool in anticipation of “The One” who would thrown down his staff and part the waters of the Endangered Species Act and bring extinct species back to life. There was only one big problem. Obama lied to them too or in this case it was more of Obama lied and the environmentalists over reacted.

So now we all know what Obama is about. He’s a liar, a green horn, a ditherer and a blatherer and knows not what he does. So, people like Rappaport Clark have decided to take up the public relations campaign of indoctrination by lies in order to get what they want through their tried and true methods of suing the government using the money they got from the government to stay in business.

Usually, I break down articles like Clark’s to deliberately point out the deceitful lies, half truths, misdirected statements, etc. Hers’ is so bad, it’s not worth 2 minutes of my time. All I will say though is that it’s disgusting. Anyone with any sense of a moral backbone would be ashamed to put their name on something so foul.

Tom Remington

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

Maine’s Vanished Deer Herd: “Fact Finding”

This is another in a series of responses to George Smith’s email about the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s (SAM) commitment to seek action in stopping the further demise of Maine’s deer herd and attempts to restore it back to something sustainable. Smith is the Executive Director of SAM.

Please find the entire email of Smith’s at this link. I will also attempt to provide all the links to all the articles pertaining to this debate at each of the sites where posted. Yesterday’s response can be found here.

Let me begin this article by first making some general comments about Smith’s and SAM’s efforts, etc. I have been reading George Smith’s recent articles published in newspapers and magazines, along with his blog at the SAM website. I believe he has a pretty good handle on the condition of Maine’s deer herd and the overall atmosphere and attitude of Maine’s angry licensed hunters. I think he also grasps the negative effects the loss of hunting will have on Maine’s economy and private business. I appreciate Smith’s work on this issue.

As pertains to the email I posted previously, I have a couple of comments. I am going to assume that where this email was only a draft to be considered by the Board of Directors for SAM, that what appears in the SAM newsletter may not be exactly the same, although overall content should remain similar.

The second thing I’d like to point out is that most all of what Smith writes is good stuff and should be considered by all of us. My attempt is not to find fault with his information but to expound on it and offer my own perspective and solutions to this sensitive issue. As is always the case, I welcome comments and responses from readers below in the comment section.

As we plod ahead, all ideas and observations need to be explored. A faithful reader on a previous article made a comparison of Homeland Secretary Janet Nepolitano’s comments about the “Pantie Bomber” terrorist and the failure of Maine’s deer management.

Nepolitano’s comment was that the “system” worked. Nobody could understand how the system worked if a terrorist was successful in getting explosives on a plane. The only failure was the “Pantie Bomber’s” inability to detonate the bomb.

The comparison comes when people in Maine begin saying the system of whitetail deer management works. If the “system” had worked, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That doesn’t however mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It simply means some things need to change.

So, let’s further examine the ideas suggested and see if we can expand on those and make the process work better.

“Fact Finding” – Smith offers that fact finding “need not take long”. I can’t say that I agree with that sentiment.

Job one is to fully understand the facts of this situation. Many are casting blame in all directions. It’s time to step back and gather all available facts. This need not take long. We look to landowner organizations like the Maine Forest Products Council and to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for the information needed to properly assess the situation. I’ve already learned a lot in meeting with these interests over the past few weeks. We’re not looking to cast blame. But we must know as much as possible about the situation.

The information needed includes: 1) an evaluation of the system of voluntary deer wintering area management agreements between DIF&W and large landowners, and LURC zoned deer yards; 2) a report on the amount and quality of deer wintering habitat now available in the unorganized territories on private and public land; 3) an evaluation and explanation of the 2009 deer season including harvest and license sales; 4) an accurate estimate of the current deer population by WMD; 5) an explanation of the major challenges in restoring deer numbers to DIF&W’s population goals for each WMD.

He begins well by saying that we all need to fully understand, stop casting blame and gather all available facts. What I am troubled with is it appears Smith believes the fact finding mission is easy and tells us from what sources we should get our facts from.

In yesterday’s article, I expressed real concern about the need to be all inclusive, that every licensed hunter in the state is a stakeholder. They are a source as well.

I don’t believe Smith is suggesting that the Maine Forest Products Council (MFPC) and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are the only places we should get facts from. However, we can’t imply this either. From experience I can tell you that anytime I employ MDIFW data in support of my statements, it doesn’t always carry a lot of credibility. It should but it doesn’t. More on this in a bit.

If Smith is honest, and I believe he is, that “we better be together on this”, then we need to look out beyond just MDIFW, MFPC and the Small Woodlot Owners Association of Maine (SWOAM), for facts. The best way I know of to be all inclusive is to not disregard somebody’s ideas but to be receptive and eager to hear and understand everyone’s frustrations. We all can learn a lot from those angry hunters.

It’s easier to collect information and responses from known entities, often by overlooking each individual hunter. That is a fact of how things operate and I’m not suggesting it should change or is wrong. I mention it because I think hunters need to find or formulate a local sporting club, get involved and become a very loud voice in the game management process. It’s your money and investment we’re discussing here.

Smith goes on to explain what he thinks the “information” needs to be. It would have been better had he added just a few words to his opening paragraph. He said, “The information needed includes:”. This would have been much more effective it had read, “The information needed includes, among other things – a list that will grow as we reach out to all concerned:”

Five items are listed. You can read them above. The list is good but incomplete. Troubling again is the fact that the information being sought comes from government agencies only – MDIFW amd Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC). We shouldn’t disregard this information but once again, the system isn’t working the way hunters want it nor is it meeting the goals of the Maine Deer Management Plan. Therefore, something must change. It’s time to consider other ideas, perhaps those not so strongly influenced by politics or job security, etc.

It would appear to me that included in this list should be the following: (Note: Some may perceive this as finger pointing and blaming MDIFW. Not at all. To this point it is only MDIFW “facts” that have fueled the deer management machine. If we are to continue to use MDIFW “fact” then certain questions need to be answered. I am challenging for those answers, seeking honest dialog.)

1). What is MDIFW’s official statement about the impact of large predators on Maine’s deer herd. Hunters in Maine aren’t interested in what is written in outdated studies from coyotes that don’t share the same habits and characteristics as Maine’s larger coyote – more than likely a hybrid of wolf and coyote. Maine outdoor writer Bob Humphrey wrote in an earlier article that an MDIFW report done in 1995 stated that coyotes accounted for 30% of deer loss statewide. Is this accurate information? Is there more updated data?

We hear from some at MDIFW that coyote depredation on deer is insignificant. This information suggests otherwise and as Humphrey begged the question, what is that mortality rate in places like Northern Maine where the deer numbers are down around extirpation levels?

Some honesty would go along ways here. If MDIFW’s official position is they aren’t concerned about coyotes, which appears to be their position, then Maine hunters want to know precisely what that is being based upon other than worn out and unproven rhetoric.

2). Would MDIFW please tell licensed hunters in Maine exactly how terrified they are of dealing with lawsuits from animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups? Maine hunters want the truth about how much time and expense this is costing us and exactly how much effect this has had on their ability to properly manage the deer herd? We know that it has had some effect because the most effective means of trapping coyotes around winter deer yards was taken away from us via lawsuits.

3). How much of Maine’s licensed deer hunters’ money is going to pay for non-game programs at MDIFW? Along with that cost analysis could we also be given an evaluation of how taking license fee money away from game management has hindered the ability of MDIFW to properly manage the deer herd and other game species.

4). Could Maine hunters get a breakdown of how much of their dollars goes toward search and rescue? And at the same time could we have an evaluation of how the loss of those dollars shifted to search and rescue has hindered the MDIFW’s ability to manage the deer herd and other game species properly.

I think you are getting my point. We are hearing and have heard for some time how that a lack of resources has kept MDIFW from doing the job they would like to do. My contention is that the lack of resources is the result of MDIFW, either willingly or forcibly, shifting dollars and manpower away from game management and into non-game programs. With a reduction of license dollars going toward good deer herd management and no income coming back to MDIFW from non-game beneficiaries, how can MDIFW properly manage Maine’s deer herd?

Remember, it’s Maine’s license buyers who fund MDIFW. Also realize that all employees of MDIFW are not hunters. It would naive to think that all employees at MDIFW are looking out for the best interest of hunters. Hunter’s interest headed south as soon as Maine fish and game became MDIFW, whose job it became to do many things not at all related to hunting, fishing and trapping.

Let’s keep going!

5). Could someone, anyone, please come up with an explanation as to how Maine’s Any-Deer Permit system works? I have tried as I’m sure many others have but it is next to impossible to convince licensed Maine hunters, especially angry ones with no deer to hunt.

While I’ve only scratched the surface, my contention still remains that fact finding will take a long time if this is to be done right. My facts don’t necessarily mean George Smith’s facts, or MDIFW’s facts. Maine hunters need convincing the source of these facts is reliable. That’s the task we face. How do we do that? If we can’t convince the angry hunters about our “facts”, I question how much success this effort will realize.

Being honest would be a great place to start. We all make mistakes. MDIFW has made some mistakes. They do a lot of good things but when something goes this awry, it’s time for adjustments. What better way to make those adjustments than done through honest dialog. Making excuses is just as bad as pointing a finger.

I suggest we take a deep breath for a second. We know that the longevity to a structure is a great foundation. I believe the foundation to “effective action”, as Smith calls it, is an honest and complete compilation of all the facts, not just the same one’s from the same sources. If we can build the best foundation possible, that meets the standards of all licensed hunters, putting in place an “effective action” will be made much simpler.

There is one other issue that needs mentioning and one that I hope doesn’t become lost in the rush to “effective action”. MDIFW can’t get a free pass on this. It appears to me they are too eager to pass the responsibility off on SAM and/or anybody else willing to take up the flag. We paid our fees and expected game management in return. Most are not satisfied with that effort.

Smith says we all need to step up and be responsible. I concur but not in order to give MDIFW a free pass. If they have forgotten who pays their bills, we need to rattle their cage. If we, the angry hunter, have to go about managing our own game, then maybe it’s time to dismantle and seriously downsize the fish and game department.

The managerial operation and structure of MDIFW comes from the governor and legislature on down. Remember that next time you go to vote.

Tom Remington

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

Profiling And Racial Profiling

Since the terror attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by the “Pantie Bomber”, much of the discussion has turned to profiling. Those that fear profiling wrongfully call it racial profiling.

Wikipedia, a publicly compiled usually biased site, can give us a publicly compiled, usually biased definition of racial profiling.

Racial profiling is the inclusion of racial or ethnic characteristics in determining whether a person is considered likely to commit a particular type of crime or an illegal act or to behave in a “predictable” manner.

Amnesty International describes racial profiling this way.

Racial profiling occurs when race is used by law enforcement or private security officials, to any degree, as a basis for criminal suspicion in non-suspect specific investigations. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled.

Profiling without the race is defined also by Wikipedia.

the extrapolation of information about something, based on known qualities

Racial profiling ends up being simply a subset of profiling in general. I suppose from that perspective we can have gender profiling, intelligence profiling, interests profiling, educational profiling, character profiling and so forth.

Whenever we label something as racial, it nearly always ends up as being interpreted as something bad. And it very well can be but does not have to be. The truth is, we learn or are trained, however you want to describe it, to profile from infancy. It is all a natural part of life otherwise how would we function?

We profile – “the extrapolation of information about something, based on known qualities” – based on our own developed qualities, ideals, morals, etc. Profiling directs us in our everyday lives; where we live, who our friends are, the kind of job we want, the college we choose to attend, who we buy a house from, etc., etc. In short, isn’t profiling just an everyday part of our lives? And aren’t we kidding ourselves if we think that we can make a law prohibiting profiling that it will stop what’s bred in us?

Let’s be honest. Racial profiling in its simplest definition is wrong. Nobody should look at a Muslim and declare them to be a terrorist simply because they are Muslim. It’s wrong and does nothing to stop terrorism.

Race is only one part of profiling. If we focus on profiling at airports, train stations, etc. as part of a routine to thwart terrorism, it would not only be wrong to suspect only Muslim or “Muslim looking” people because of race but because not all terrorists are of “Middle Eastern” decent.

Police have used profiling for years to help solve cases. Years of collected data has helped them to be able to profile a suspect, even when they don’t know who that suspect is. Behavior patterns are determined from the same data. While not a perfect system, it can help solve crimes and solve them quicker.

Law enforcement officials are trained and have learned from experience what to look for when patrolling or searching for suspects etc. Police can recognized the position of a person driving in a car and make a reasonable determination whether that driver is intoxicated. When police ask people questions, they’re not just seeking an answer. They observe behavior patterns, body language, etc.. They can then tell if someone is lying or hiding something. Without this kind of profiling, crimes would never get resolved.

Should we be profiling at airports and other venues that attract terrorists? Absolutely, but exclusively profiling only race is not only wrong, it’s stupid and does nothing to deter crime, no more than pulling aside a 90-year old grandmother and strip-searching her.

One of the problems with airport security is that screeners are scared to death that if they select the wrong person to screen, they will get into trouble. This has to stop.

Authorities continue to collect data about terrorists. With this information they then can extrapolate that out to determine a profile, complete with behavior patterns.

We need to stop labeling the efforts to screen passengers on planes as racial profiling. It’s profiling and yes, a person’s race is all just a part of the entire overall picture.

It’s a shame that our lives have had to come to this. Flying stinks, especially since 9/11 and presently after the Pantie Bomber’s success in getting explosives past security. This leaves us with the choices of either not worrying about security and we can all take our chances when we fly or do the best job we can to screen passengers, including all those that fit a profile. If this is an infringement on your rights, then don’t fly. If we can’t make flying safe, there won’t be any flying therefore it won’t matter anyway.

Tom Remington

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

Stepping Up To Help Maine’s Deer Herd Could Get Bogged Down In Politics

I recently posted the thoughts and ideas of George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his quest to save and/or rebuild a large portion of Maine’s whitetail deer population that is dismal and described as some as beyond rebuilding.

While the debate on that subject is young and in need of “help” from “everyone”, I thought as one of every I would offer up my own thoughts in response to Smith’s.

There’s a big rub that exists when talking about the deer herd in Maine. That rub is the dissatisfaction of the Maine hunter who buys the license. Hunters want action not another effort of gathering together stakeholders to rehash what most already know. They don’t see any of the previous efforts put forth as amounting to anything. Why would it be different now?

Can we blame the disgruntled hunters for feeling this way? The deer are gone and what the hunters are getting is more blaming of bad winters and cut down forests. They are tired of hearing about these excuses and they want action. Calling together all the same components of what to hunters looks like failed policies and poor management, isn’t going over big at all. That’s a wall that needs dismantling.

Smith says early on in his piece that a process has to be followed or the consequences could be more harmful than helpful.

Effective action follows understanding follows fact finding.

I wonder if the “facts” will come mostly from the same source of “facts” that has gotten us to the point we are in now? The most important fact is that the deer herd in depleted in certain areas of the state. A fact is what has taken place, whether natural or man made hasn’t worked. A fact is maybe it’s time to find some “different” facts.

I’m not suggesting anyone is insane, but the definition of such is a repetition of the same action hoping for a different result. Sanity tells us if the repetition isn’t working, perhaps we need to change something. We cannot pretend to gain an understanding of facts we aren’t convinced accurately describe a situation.

If we are to effect the proper action to achieve an end result, there must be a united effort as Smith suggests. The only way that is going to happen is to convince the disgruntled hunters.

So where are the facts to effect this understanding and action going to come from? The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Try telling these angry hunters that MDIFW has the facts. Why should they be believed? Hunters have laid out a lot of money over the years and the results are not very good.

Are we going to believe “facts” from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine? Some will. Many won’t. Sportsmen are not united on issues and while the SAM is the largest organization representing Maine sportsmen, it doesn’t represent a majority of hunters.

Will “facts” come from guides and outfitters? That’s tough as well. You see we find out that the Maine guides seemed to dictate to MDIFW that they didn’t want more bear harvested as a means of helping to reduce bear predation on deer. It was reported in a previous article on Smith’s blog that MDIFW was simply following the recommendations of the predator working group. It doesn’t sit well with deer hunters when they find a group getting their wishes taken care of at what appears to be the expense of the deer population.

The stakeholders in the issue are everybody who buys a hunting license to hunt deer. Let’s not kid ourselves. The groups are simply a means of gathering more power to promote group agendas, therefore having more influence on game management policies of the MDIFW. I suppose one can either work independently, join an existing group that seems to best represent their ideals or shut up and go away.

Everyone of the groups I’ve mentioned and not mentioned, including the individual deer hunter, plays an important and integral role in deer management in Maine. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the squeakiest wheel isn’t necessarily a good representation of the hunting population.

Smith’s contention that “Effective action follows understanding follows fact finding” is a good one but each element of that progression has to be done right. The task that lies ahead to gather facts that can be agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of hunters and not just by the “group in charge” is the axis that will make the wheel turn. Once that is achieved, gaining understanding and putting together actions shouldn’t be so difficult.

I believe Smith understands this.

We cannot sugar-coat this situation. Hunters deserve to know the truth. What is the situation? What can we expect in 2010 and the years beyond? What will work? What won’t work? Who is stepping up to help? Who is not? These truths must come from every organization, including landowner groups, SAM, and DIF&W. And we better be together on this. There is simply no room for argument, or a shading of the facts to suit someone’s agenda. SAM seeks a commitment from all major players to both fact finding and truth telling. I am promising you will get nothing but the unvarnished truth from SAM, even if some of it is hard to accept.

My fear is that the “facts” will be repeated from the same sources as before without support and explanation from someone hunters can trust. I don’t know who that is but it might be worthwhile to come up with one, two or three people who can hammer out the “facts” and pass them on to hunters in order to bring them on board.

Smith says, “And we better be together on this”. He’s right but how do we do that? If we can figure that out, the rest should be comparatively easy.

If you hunt and you care about the future of deer hunting in Maine, I would suggest getting involved. How you do that is up to you. I suggested before that perhaps you can find a sportsman’s organization that best fits your ideals. Bear in mind you won’t find a perfect one, just a good one.

You can also become an activists by yourself. Talk to your friends and neighbors about what’s going on with the deer. Help them understand why it is important to everyone that we have a healthy deer herd, a well-managed one that includes predator controls, etc. Do some research on your own seeking the truth about deer management, predator management and landowner rights. Talk to your local game warden. If you can develop a good report with them, they can educated you to a lot of what is going on in your area. Report a poacher.

Do your part as a hunter. If there are too many coyotes in your favorite hunting spot, take up hunting them or find someone who will. Invite a trapper or a coyote hunter to come on your land and do some of your own predator control.

This task will not be easy but sitting idly by complaining isn’t a viable option.

In the future I will examine more of Smith’s ideas as well as those of others and the progress that is being made. Look for updates and links.

More responses: Fact Finding

Tom Remington

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

Wolf Hunters “Kill With Abandon, Glee”

In a concrete jungle far, far away from where any wolf should roam (but perhaps where they ought too) people feel the need to demonize all who would oppose the irrational over-protection of wolves. From the midst of New York City, we all become enlightened by some of the most slanted editorials about wolves and wildlife management in general.

The New York Times on December 1, 2009 had an editorial, “Wolf Hunt” in which it was quite clear the editors are completely ignorant of what they speak but yet felt compelled to continue the environmentalist brainwashing they can so feverishly perpetuate in their daily rag.

“Wolf Hunt” says:

Nothing lays bare the true point of the wolf season more than Idaho’s recent decision to extend its hunt by three months, ending on March 31. The reason is that hunters have simply not killed enough wolves — only half of the state’s quota of 220 so far.

Unfortunately, this is a poor representation of the truth, not that that ever stopped an editorial. What the writer(s) is attempting to do is influence the reader to believe that the only reason a wolf hunt was extended was so that evil hunters could get in some more killing. How far from the truth.

Quotas on wolves weren’t randomly drawn from a hat. It was all based on projected goals of wolf populations within specified wolf zones or wildlife management areas. Tags were issued in numbers that represented the sought after number of wolves that best would biologically and socially be supported in that zone. The fish and game departments readily admitted the quotas were low in order to err on the side of caution.

The wolf hunt was therefore extended in regions where quotas had not been met based on science and wolf management goals not in order to fill the blood lusts of hunters. This same idiotic mentality is displayed in another letter to the editor in response to “Wolf Hunt”. The writer says,:

This small but fervent group (hunters) sees wolves not as part of a complex ecosystem but rather as an enemy to be conquered, a demon to be exorcised. Thus, they kill with abandon and, often, glee.

Talk about broad strokes with a brush. And of course this is as far from the truth as one can get. Yes, there are those who would probably illegally kill a wolf for no real reason at all, just the same as there are environmentalists who would burn buildings, turn over cars, destroy property and harm people to perpetuate their agendas.

It is quite unfortunate that few of the environmentalists and wolf lovers are at all interested in discovering the truth about wolves. If they did, they would be better armed to know how to protect them. In their fervent love affair with the romantic and iconic wolf, much of what they promote is more harmful to the overall protection of the animal they strive to protect.

The information being used to sway readers to their side of the aisle is often inaccurate. But they don’t know that and don’t want to. In “Wolf Hunt” the editor writes:

What matters is the survival of not just a few token wolves, but strong, genetically healthy wolf populations.

Sounds great! But it’s a myth. What was deliberately kept from everyone, including most wolf lovers before reintroduction, was the fact that it had been learned that 1). the Canadian gray wolf to be introduced was not the same wolf that roamed this area before extirpation; 2). wolves were already established in Northern and parts of Central Idaho and Northwestern Montana; and 3). there really are no such thing as pure wolves. Testing that has been done has determined that wolves and coyotes regularly interbreed and have been for a long time. Combine that with the interbreeding of domestic dogs, both intentional and unintentional, and what we have dotting our landscape are populations of hybrid dogs, some of which we are spending millions of dollars on to protect.*

*See, “Wolf Recovery and the Corruption of Government Science” by George Dovel – The Outdoorsman; Bulletin Number 35; July-November 2009 issue; pages 14-21

It’s an uphill battle for sure. While virtually every major media outlet in this country and scores of smaller independent media sources, espouse to environmentalism and readily reprint the propaganda put out by these groups, the task of educating the public to the truth becomes enormous. Most people do long for the truth and they have yet to learn that their sources might not be giving them what it is they want.

Tom Remington

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

USFWS Basically Ignored Concerns About Disease From Wolves Before Reintroduction

We are getting to a point in this great nation where people will seriously lose any trust in the scientific community. Politics run rampant there and it’s political money that funds scientific research which is about the same as the fox taking over duties of feeding the chickens, fattening them up for the kill.

Climategate has brought reasonable people to a point of having doubts about what is driving the push behind anthropogenic global warming. With the release of emails and documents that seem to clearly point a finger at scientists hiding data, conspiring to cover it up while demonizing anyone in opposition, one has to wonder just how deep this goes into the scientific research community.

The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone and Central Idaho in 1995ish pales in comparison to Climategate, nonetheless it is just as troubling. Before wolves could be released into these regions, a federal bureaucratic process had to first be followed. One of the last items on a check list is an Environmental Impact Statement. With a completed EIS, the USFWS in 1994 decided it would bring wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Area, including Central Idaho, and called those wolves a Non Essential Experimental population.

During the process of creating the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the feds have to have a comment period from the public. Often times these comment periods result in a tremendous number of comments that come from everyday citizens to world renowned scientists.

During the comment period for wolf reintroduction, several scientists submitted information concerning disease, worms and parasites that wolves are known to carry, posing threats to other wildlife, domestic animals and humans. It appears from the 1994 EIS for wolf reintroduction, those concerns were pretty much completely ignored.

Will Graves, author of “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, has studied wolves for many years. He has traveled to Russia and surrounding nations to gather information, historic documents, etc., to learn more about wolves, their diseases and the impact these animals have had on humans for centuries. This is the basis of his book.

Graves submitted comments to Ed Bangs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning disease, worms and parasites, among other interests, dated October 3, 1993.

1. Diseases, Worms, and Parasites. I was surprised that the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) did not make a detailed study on the impact issue of diseases, worms, and parasites (page 9). I believe an EIS is not complete without a detailed study covering the diseases, worms and parasites that wolves would carry, harbor, and spread around in YNP (Yellowstone National Park) and in Idaho. The study should cover the potential negative impact of these diseases on wild and domestic animals, and on humans. I believe the potential negative impact of the diseases is a valid reason not to reintroduce wolves into YNP and to Idaho.

Countless articles about the diseases, worms and parasites carried, harbored, and spread around by wide ranging wolves have been published in a magazine sponsored by the former Soviet Ministry of Agriculture. For example, a Soviet biologist reported that gray wolves are carriers of a number of types of worms and parasites which are dangerous for animals and for humans. According to this biologist, the main one is cestoda. Over approximately a ten year period, the Soviets conducted a controlled study on the subject. They made the following observations. When and where wolves were almost eliminated in a given research area, (where almost all wolves were killed by each spring and new wolves moved into the controlled area only in the fall) infections of taenia hydatiqena in moose and boar did not occur in more than 30 to 35% of the animals. The rate of infections were 3 to 5 examples in each animal. When and where wolves were not killed in the controlled areas in the spring, and where there were 1 or 2 litters of wolf cubs, the infections in moose and boar of taenia hydatiqena reached 100% and up to 30 to 40 examples of infection (infestation) were in each moose and boar. Each year the Soviets studied 20 moose and 50 boar. The research was documented and proved that even in the presence of foxes, raccoons and domestic dogs, ONLY THE WOLF was the basic source of the infections in the moose and boar. Examinations of 9 wolves showed that each one was infected with taenia hydatiqena with an intensity of 5 to 127 examples. This confirmed the Soviet conclusions. The damage done by taenia hydatiqena to cloven footed game animals is documented by Soviet veterinarians. My concern is that if gray wolves in the former USSR carried and spread to game animals dangerous parasites, then there must be danger that gray wolves in YNP and in Idaho would also spread parasites. Why should we subject our game animals, and possibly our domestic animals to such danger?

If wolves are planted in YNP and in Idaho, I believe the wolves will undoubtedly play a role in the epizootiology and epidemiology of rabies. The wolf has played an important role, or perhaps a major role, as a source of rabies for humans in Russia, Asia, and the former USSR. From 1976 to 1980 a wolf bite was the cause of rabies in 3.5% of human cases in the Uzbek, Kazakh, and Georgian SSRs and in several areas of the RSFSR. Thirty cases of wolf rabies and 36 attacks on humans by wolves were registered in 1975 – 1978 only in the European area of the RSFSR. In the Ukraine, wolf rabies constituted .8% of all cases of rabies in wildlife in 1964 to 1978. The incidence of wolf rabies increased six fold between 1977 and 1979. The epizootic significance of the wolf has been shown in the Siberian part of the former USSR. Between 1950 and 1977 a total of 8.7% of rabies cases in the Eastern Baikal region were caused by wolf bites. In the Aktyubinsk Region of Kazakhstan, of 54 wolves examined from 1972 to 1978, 17 or 31.5% tested positive for rabies. During this period, 50 people were attacked by wolves and 33 suffered bites by rabid wolves. This shows that healthy wolves also attack and bite humans. Recent Russian research states that as the numbers of hybrid wolves increases, the likelihood of a healthy hybrid wolf attacking humans also increase. Russian wildlife specialists state that when there is no hunting of wolves, the possibility of wolves attacking humans also increases, as the wolves lose their fear of humans.

Wolves not only have and carry rabies, but also have carried foot and mouth disease and anthrax. Wolves in Russia are reported to carry over 50 types of worms and parasites, including echinococcus, cysticercus and the trichinellidae family.

Prior to planting wolves in YNP and Idaho, I respectfully request a detailed study be made on the potential impact wolves will have in regard to carry, harboring and spreading of diseases.

Needless to say, Graves never got his wish. As a matter of fact, it appears that the USFWS pretty much just ignored anything to do with diseases, worms and parasites, with a mild exception to rabies. Did they have this information and covered it up in order not to dissuade people from wanting wolves?

The 1994 FEIS basically omits any real information about disease, worms and parasites. On page 55 of the Consultation and Coordination portion of the FEIS, the USFWS devotes one small section to deal with disease.

Diseases and Parasites to and from Wolves

Most respondents who commented on this issue expressed concern about diseases and parasites introduced wolves could transfer to other animals and to humans in recovery areas. The disease most often mentioned was rabies.

Several people advocated additional research be conducted on the possible effects of wolf introduction on other animals and humans. Also, several individuals noted as a potential problem warranting further study was the possibility of exposing introduced wolves to diseases or parasites that could decimate their numbers.

“Wolves are known rabies carriers. We have enough health problems in our culture today, what we don’t need is another problem!”

Response – Wolves will be given vaccinations when they are handled to reduce the chances of them catching diseases from coyotes and other canids. Wolves will eventually naturally develop resistance
to exposure to canid diseases that are present in wildlife and domestic dog populations in the western
United States. Wolves will not significantly increase the transmission of rabies or other diseases.

Not only did they not address any of Graves’ legitimate concerns, the only thing mentioned by name for disease was rabies. And not only was all other diseases, worms and parasites ignored, they only addressed the issue to the detriment of the wolves. Read the response above again. Their answer to everything is to give the wolves a vaccination before being released, promising the wolves won’t catch anything from other wildlife and/or domestic dog populations. They completely fail to address the concerns of other wildlife, domestic dogs and humans. It appears their bias for the wolves comes shining through brightly, caring not enough to be concerned with anything else.

Being the cynic that I am and now with an even greater distrust of science, particularly that funded by and sponsored by the federal government, this sure looks like the dandy work of a cover up to me.

In 1993 Will Graves and other scientists warned the feds that bringing wolves in would end up in the spread of unwanted diseases, some of which could potentially destroy other wildlife and be of harm to humans. It was ignored. Now, 16 years later, we find out that over 60% of wolves tested in the Greater Yellowstone Area, including Idaho and Montana, are chuck-a-block full of worms, the kind that can be harmful to humans.

But, let’s not kid ourselves. Even though the feds were dishonest in their approach, we shouldn’t be. We don’t know where these wolves got the worms. Yes, they were vaccinated before being released, but are we sure that the vaccinations took care of everything? Most assume that wolves that migrated into the region on their own through Northern Idaho and Northwestern Montana, brought the diseases with them. There’s not a lot that can be done about that. But that’s not the real issue.

Wolves are known to be a wide ranging creature. Environmentalist want to paint the picture to the public that wolves remain in their own neat little packs and that if there are not millions of these killing machines spread out all over the U.S. of A. they somehow will never survive.

Wolves roam and they carry disease. The USFWS either deliberately omitted this information in order to manipulate the public opinion about wolves or they didn’t do their homework and were irresponsible in not conducting a complete study on the impact of diseases, worms and parasites as was requested. Now we have another impact from wolves we all will have to deal with.

Who do we trust anymore?

Tom Remington

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

Maine Hunters Are Mad And Justly So……..For Many Reasons

Better communication can resolve a lot of problems in our world. In the converse, lack of such can cause things to spin drastically out of control. Maine hunters, particularly deer hunters, are quite angry and I believe they are justified in at least some of their anger. All they are getting are excuses.

It is no secret the past winters of 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 were tough on the Maine whitetail deer herds. I think I read someplace recently that these two winters, back to back, ranked 3rd and 9th worse in the state’s history, but they obviously weren’t the worst.

The causes for the lack of deer in Maine are complex and hunters don’t feel they are being given the courtesy of a better explanation other than winters are tough, habitat is shrinking, excuses ad nauseum. While both bad winters and shrinking habitat are as true as true can be, hunters feel more could be done to protect the deer herds and should have been done before now. This order of frustration has been building over the past two deer hunting seasons in particular, culminating this year with one of the most dismal of seasons that old timers can recall.

Lee Kantar, head deer and moose biologist at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, predicted this passing deer season would be bleak. He was right.

But that still isn’t cutting it for the hunters.

I have written in previous articles about things I think at least might be considered as ways of helping to recover a whitetail deer herd. I won’t take up space in this post to go through them again. Click here for the latest article on this issue and links to previous posts.

Let me hit briefly on the excuses being thrown out to Maine hunters about what happened to their deer herd or would I be more accurate to say the MDIFW’s deer herd, as ownership seems a bit fuzzy?

1). Severe winters
2). Loss of Habitat and Winter yarding areas
3). Predation

It should be made clear that in my opinion, I think the biggest reason hunters are mad is because they are not getting their questions answered satisfactorily and in some cases are not being treated in the manner they should be. Let’s face it, MDIFW has an uphill battle to maintain a good relationship with the public. It’s way beyond that when it comes to dealing with the license-paying hunters. They demand action for the dollars they’ve invested. But lest we forget who pays the bills? And therein lies perhaps the biggest rub.

It is my feeling, and I am far from alone, that the hunters, who have forked over the money for years for game management are being taken advantage of or at least they are perceiving it that way. This comes out in several ways but let me touch on a couple very quickly.

You don’t have to be a college educated researcher to understand that MDIFW spends way too much time addressing non-game issues, i.e. search and rescue, non-game wildlife, catering to wildlife viewers, who don’t give a dime to the cause, and spending far too much time in litigation with animal rights groups. Some of that comes from taking up a position of weakness from the MDIFW but that’s another day.

When license-paying hunters see this, combined with the reality they’ve spent a lot of money and can’t even imagine a deer in the woods, they want answers not excuses.

What this is all boiling down to is a simple matter of communication. Stop with the excuses nobody wants to hear anymore. Address the hunters as real people. They may not be all college educated but they are nobody’s fool either. Some greenhorn, wet-behind-the-ears biologists has years to go before he’ll grasp as much knowledge as some of these seasoned, crusty old Mainers.

What matters is us license buyers give fish and game people a job and too often it is forgotten. These hunters deserve more than they are getting and I’m not talking about bigger deer herds. They want officials in Augusta to tell them, we believe what you are seeing in the woods is real. They want a biologist to admit that mistakes have been made. Instead of a wildlife official telling the hunters if they don’t like the coyote situation, that’s your problem. Go do something about it. Perhaps MDIFW would be well served to assume a little ownership too. Maybe for once they could just admit that there are too many coyotes, especially now that our deer herds are in trouble. They could better support efforts to focus predator reduction around winter deer yards instead of echoing the same hollow rhetoric that predator management won’t work. If a handful of deer can be saved this way, the resulting effort is far more positive than sitting in Augusta waiting for the weather to change but more importantly, it gives hunters back their sense of inclusion and ownership. Is that all bad?

One of the biggest complaints I hear from hunters when states absorb their fish and game interests into bigger government bureaucracies, like natural resources or conservation departments, is their loss of being a part of the wildlife management process. Communication disappears and nobody in the BIG government listens.

Travis Barrett, a public relations representative for MDIFW, has his own blog now. In a post dated 12/8/09 Barrett attempts to address hunters about their concerns over an overgrown population of coyotes and what MDIFW is going to do about it. His answer, while truthful, certainly didn’t use a very good approach if he really thought it would appease the angry hunters. I think he actually thought it more of a joke. His answer was, “Coyotes can be controlled by you.”

Maine has a year-round, open hunting season on coyotes during daylight hours (1/2 hour before sunrise to 1/2 hour after sunset). It also has a more than 6-month night hunting season on coyotes.

For just $4 for the permit, you can kill as many coyotes as you wish. Day after day after day after day…

There is also an extended opportunity to trap coyotes, again with no bag limits.

Notice there is no ownership of this problem by MDIFW. Nope! The thrust of the answer is, quit your complaining. If you don’t like there being too many coyotes, go kill some. While hunters need to do exactly as Barrett is suggesting, this is poor public relations.

George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his blog dated, December 3, 2009, he shares with us his notes and observations from the latest meeting of the Deer Task Force. If you haven’t read it all the way through yet, you should. The tone of the meeting that I derived from Smith’s blog certainly wasn’t encouraging as it pertained to Maine’s northern deer herd. In fairness though, there was a lot of good discussion about positive initiatives, etc.

I went away from reading this information feeling quite frankly as though MDIFW has no interest in putting any effort or resources into recovering the Northern Maine deer herd.

Stadler said lack of wintering area, including fragmentation of habitat, is the primary biological fact and “the forests of northern Maine are no longer biologically capable of supporting deer.” The driving factor is the poor winter cover.

We have coyotes in central and southern Maine, but winter cover is better in those areas so we have more deer, reported Stadler.

The reality seems to be that we will not rebuild the deer herd in the north in the short term.

Representatives of MDIFW made it a point that they have no resources available anyway; another excuse hunters want answers for.

George does bring up something he addressed the group with.

I offered the group these thoughts. Deer hunters are angry, casting blame widely, demanding fast action on all problems. Nonresident deer hunters have abandoned Maine causing severe economic loss in the outdoor industry and damaging DIF&W. It’s not good enough to say we’ll come back in a year and see what’s happened. We need real accountability and commitments now. Sportsmen also want to know what they can do and we need to provide that information.

Hunters don’t want to hear that MDIFW has no resources to do this. This is what they pay their money for and now there are no resources. Why? Because in my opinion, too many resources are being used on non-game issues. Lawsuits and the screaming, demanding wildlife viewers get the attention because MDIFW doesn’t want to deal with more lawsuits. Resources are drained and diverted away from game management.

We hear repeatedly that MDIFW has to consider all the “social” ramifications of its wildlife management decisions. It is true we can’t ignore the general public about such issues but when hunters see their investment being hijacked because of “social” issues, its going to make them angry.

While much of the information discussed at the Deer Task Force meeting that George Smith has shared with us all, is probably factual, how it is being dealt with is not doing anything to keep the hunter happy. When MDIFW loses sight of who pays their salaries, perhaps it’s time for major changes. Maybe Maine needs new leadership from the governor on down.

The question also becomes, why has it come to the point of staring down the barrel that Northern Maine’s whitetail deer population is gone? Did it have to come to such a drastic crossroad? We cannot control the weather but let’s be honest. Maine has always had stretches of bad weather and we’ve hung on.

Kantar points out that in the bad snow years of the late 60s and early 70s, the Northern Maine herd survived better then because there was more wintering habitat. Nobody will argue that fact, but still the question remains, did MDIFW plan for bad winters AND the loss of habitat other than talk about it? The fact is those winter deer yards didn’t just disappear last week. We all should have been more proactive, more aggressively dealing with the issue. The truth is we weren’t and now we are paying for it.

Here’s another factor that I’m sure will anger some and begin driving a wedge between hunters and outfitters; something that can’t happen. According to Smith’s accounting, it was asked if MDIFW planned on doing anything about reducing the bear population in areas where deer herds are suffering to help alleviate the predation; a suggestion I have had for some time.

Jim Tobin asked why we aren’t expanding bear hunting opportunities or bag limits. The answer is that the bear hunting outfitters oppose an increase in the bear harvest, and fear anything that opens up bear hunting to another referendum. Stadler said DIF&W was simply following the recommendations of the Predation Task Force.

We’re all in this together, aren’t we? I have no issue with outfitters trying to make a living and I certainly understand their concerns about being fearful of lawsuits and referendums but doesn’t anyone else see the anger that will arise when regular “Joe”, who’s mad as hell because the deer are gone, discovers the outfitters are making the decisions as to what is best for the protection and rebuilding of a seriously depleted deer herd? Now hunters will question the make up of the Predator Task Force. Perhaps Baldacci needs to form another “task force”. And doesn’t Stadler’s response sound more like a cop out?

These are only some of the issues that hunters see and are angry about. They are not getting any satisfactory answers. An employee of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, it would seem, would be seriously concerned about keeping a job. Are they not biting the hand that feeds them?

George Smith is right. Out-of-state hunters will not come to Maine and hunt, at least not for a long time. That’s big revenue loss. Without it, someone has to go at MDIFW.

But what could be worse than losing all that license revenue from out-of-state hunters? Simple. Losing resident hunters as well. They will get fed up with spending money each year to go walk around the woods looking at coyote tracks and recalling the days when there used to be a lot of deer around. Maine hunters are very supportive of fish and game interests and are willing to cough up more money when they are convinced the money is well spent. Trust me. They are not convinced!

Maine should be very happy they have Gerry Lavigne. He understands the problems and he sees Maine hunters are not going to get any help from MDIFW. They don’t see coyote predation as a problem. Travis Barrett was right. Hunters need to take this matter into their own hands and go kill coyotes. This is no joke! They need to kill as many as they can. They are like rodents and need to be kept in smaller numbers. They carry and spread disease and in numbers too great, they destroy other parts of our ecosystems.

Lavigne is taking positive steps to do something about predation. He spells it out here and here. My advice to you is to stop looking at MDIFW for help. They have their agendas and it isn’t necessarily the same as yours. If you think coyotes are killing all the deer in your favorite hunting grounds, it’s time to do something about it.

I wrote back last May what has now become the obvious. I said that the reality was that MDIFW did not have the resources to manage whitetail deer in Northern Maine. I’ve explained what I think is the reason, so what are we going to do about it? Should we let Baldacci create a bigger governmental kibosh by combining several agencies or are we going to demand that our investment into game management be better looked after?

I will repeat myself. Managing deer in Maine is a serious and complex undertaking. I am willing to believe that what the majority of Maine’s wildlife officials are telling us is true, even though I know many readers will not concur. Winters can be severe and will be again. Habitat has been reduced and efforts are underway to find a cure. I think MDIFW discounts the negative effects of large predators on our deer. I don’t. But the two biggest issues I have right now are these.

1). What got us to the point we are at now?, and
2). MDIFW needs to do a far better job in public relations than they are.

They need to stop putting down the hunters and ridiculing them for sharing their frustrations and on-the-ground observations. The also need to spend less of our time and money on non-game issues and get back to the business of managing game.

Maine cannot afford to lose its deer herd and it will never survive without the average “Joe” buying his license every year. Make all the excuses in the world as to what happened to the deer herd but there is no real excuse for poor communications and lousy public relations.

Tom Remington

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

Next Page »