Environment - Black Bear Blog - Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts.


Archive for the 'Environment' Category

“Hypermiling” Or How To Get Better Gas Mileage Or Put You Life At Risk

How to Save GasHere’s an article in the Washington Post about obsessed people who try most anything to extend the distance they can go on a tank of gas in their cars - whether a conventional or hybrid.

You need to read the entire piece but here are the titles to “techniques” hypermilers use:

1). Driver the Speed Limit

2). Turn off Your Car and Coast (not recommended)

3). Optimize Your Route

4). Watch Your Tire Pressure

5). Change Your Oil (and use thinner oil)

Sound a bit absurd some of it? Don’t tell that to a hypermiler.

Tom Remington

Technorati , ,

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

Posted on Friday, May 9th, 2008
Under: Environment, Business | No Comments »

President Bush Signs Heritage Area Bill Into Law

An Earmark + “K Street” Lobbyist = Massive Federal Land Grab

by David A. Ridenour

With his signature on May 8 to S. 2739, the ‘Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008,’ George Bush has now signed on to the establishment of de facto federal zoning along a 175-mile corridor running from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to Charlottesville, Virginia. It’s one of the largest federal land grabs in history.

On April 29, the U.S. House of Representatives passed this massive, pork-laden bill that included a provision creating the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) National Heritage Area. Debate was limited to just 40 minutes.

Heritage areas are National Park Service preservation zones in which environmentalists, federal officials and local elitists influence local land-use decisions, frequently in ways that restrict property rights and move property ownership beyond the means of the less well-to-do.

Environmentalists and preservationists love heritage areas, because they can be used to curtail development.

Local elitists like them because they can help keep people they consider to be undesirable out of their communities. Minorities are harmed disproportionately when land-use restrictions cause home prices to soar. (It is perhaps no coincidence that lily-white Waterford, Virginia was at the epicenter of the effort to create the JTHG Heritage Area. Waterford has a rich black history — and history is apparently where the village would like to keep it.)

Politically well-connected developers like heritage areas because they can be used to establish near monopolies on real estate development opportunities. As the Heritage Foundation’s Ron Utt discovered, that’s precisely what the JTHG Heritage Area would do.

And federal bureaucrats love heritage areas because they allow them to get around little inconveniences to their central planning — inconveniences such as local elected officials.

House passage of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area was hailed by its chief sponsor, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and by the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation, the chief lobby organization behind the effort. Both noted the overwhelming vote in the House, 291-117.

The bill received support across party lines. In the House, supporters included Representatives Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Don Young (R-AK), William Jefferson (D-LA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and John Doolittle (R-CA). (Now all these gentlemen can say they have a second thing in common.)

But it is unlikely that support for the land grab was as great as the tally might suggest, as it was buried in an omnibus bill of over 60 other proposals — some enjoying wide support.

As Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) noted during the limited debate, “Many of the sections of this bill are unable to stand on their own and have subsequently been bundled into a $300 million brew to avoid individual scrutiny… this omnibus was created with enough prizes that inevitably the bad will be overlooked and everything, the good, the bad and the ugly, will be able to cross the finish line.”

Approval of the JTHG Heritage Area is a case study in what is wrong with American politics.

The JTHG Heritage Area wasn’t approved by Congress due to overwhelming public demand for it. Borrowing from the Beatles, perhaps it got by with a little help from Wolf’s friends — a lot of Ben Franklins, Alexander Hamiltons, Abe Lincolns and George Washingtons.

You see, Congressman Wolf slipped a $1 million dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill — buried among 6,372 other earmarks — for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Foundation. This is the very group that has led the lobbying effort for Wolf’s bill. More unusual still is that at the time of the earmark, the foundation had yet to even be incorporated and was operating out of the personal post office box of its executive director, Cate Magennis Wyatt.

It appears as though Congressman Wolf used taxpayer money to fund the lobbying campaign for his own bill. (Read more about his here)

Then there’s the unseemly Wolf-”K Street” lobbyist connection. Wolf’s land grab bill was written by Don Pongrace, who runs the Indian practice (yes, a lobbyist for Indian gaming interests) for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a large law firm with offices in D.C., London, New York and Moscow.

Not only that, but Pongrace apparently was authorized to speak for Congressman Wolf in meetings about the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Heritage Area.

It turns out that Pongrace serves on the board of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground foundation — the group receiving Wolf’s earmark largesse — and Pongrace’s wife has served the group as vice president.

Apparently, the concept of a conflict of interest is lost on the mega law firm of Akin Gump.

Interestingly, at the very time Frank Wolf was collaborating with Akin Gump on his bill, he criticized the firm for working for the Chinese government in its bid to acquire Unocal.

Wolf wrote to Akin Gump, “I question the appropriateness of an American firm… being on the payroll of the Chinese government… I immediately thought, ‘Is there no bright line to separate who lobbyists in Washington will and will not represent?’”

Is there no bright line, indeed.

Congressman Wolf introduces a bill written by a “K Street” lobbyist, arranges a $1 million earmark for the group lobbying for that bill — and employing the lobbyist’s wife — and he asks about bright lines?

Congressman Wolf also received help pushing his bill from National Park Service employees, who acted contrary to the Service’s official position, which calls for the creation of no additional heritage areas until a formal NPS program is created through legislation. Nonetheless, the NPS’s Brenda Barrett and Alma Ripps were dispatched to defend creation of the JTHG Heritage Area.

The full extent of the National Park Service’s assistance with the legislative effort is still unknown, as the Service has so far failed to fully comply with a Freedom of Information Act request. In violation of the FOIA law, it provided only incomplete records and documents that obviously had been altered (helpful hint for NPS employees: if you plan to alter documents, you might want to avoid using ruled paper).

Ethical questions surround the process through which this national heritage area was approved. A presidential veto was warranted.

-David A. Ridenour is vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Technorati , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on Friday, May 9th, 2008
Under: Legislative News, Hunting Politics, Environment | No Comments »

The Feds “Flawed Research” To Determine Polar Bear Future

Research that the Department of Interior is using to render a decision on whether to list the polar bear as endangered is critically flawed, according to Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School and others who were part of an audit group formulated by the State of Alaska.

Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.

According to Science Daily, Armstrong says that in order to list a healthy species as endangered, you have to have “valid forecasts”.

“To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.

“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”

Armstrong says that his group examined nine U.S. Geological Survey Administrative Reports and found that the most relevant study, “properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles”. They also determined that these same studies showed that 69% of the information was “contravened”, to some degree.

The group further states that the studies failed to substantiate “assumptions” of melting sea ice or the ability of the polar bear to adapt to changing climate patterns.

In short, Armstrong has determined that any ruling, whether to list or not list, cannot be scientifically substantiated using the flawed studies the Department of Interior is using.

Next!

Tom Remington

Technorati , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on Thursday, May 8th, 2008
Under: Alaska Hunting News, Endangered Species, Environment | 4 Comments »

So Long Al Gore!

Poll GraphI guess if Black Bear Blog readers had their chance, they would just as soon put Al Gore on an iceberg and set him adrift, somewhere…..anywhere. The latest not-so-scientific Black Bear Blog poll showed 58% of readers (at total of 73) thought Al Gore should be sent sailing.

Just as interesting though is that 39%, a total of 39 readers, want the polar bear listed as endangered - not threatened but endangered. As far as anything in between, there wasn’t a lot of interest.

Here are the results of the Polar Bear Poll!

Should The Polar Bear Be Further Protected With Endangered Species Act?

* List the bear as Endangered.: 31% (39)
* List the bear as Threatened.: 6% (7)
* Leave well enough alone.: 6% (7)
* Put Al Gore on an iceberg and set him adrift.: 58% (73)

Total Votes : 126

Thanks for participating and check out the latest poll to the right.

Tom Remington

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

Posted on Thursday, May 8th, 2008
Under: Polls, Endangered Species, Predators, Environment | No Comments »

$126.6 Million To Study Pumping CO2 Into The Earth

Yup! We already got one guy thinking he can create a giant baggie and sink it beneath the ocean floor and pump this nasty CO2 stuff into it. Now the Department of Energy is wanting to grant $126.6 million to study whether or not we can pump CO2 into empty places beneath the earth.

There’s a lot of empty heads in Washington that could hold decades of this stuff.

Tom Remington

Technorati , , ,

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

Posted on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008
Under: Environment | 1 Comment »

Blame It All On Global Warming

Illusion of SpinningWe are rapidly closing in on what many of us hope will be the end of “Bush Derangement Syndrome”. If you’re not familiar with Bush Derangement Syndrome, it is a disease that afflicts millions of Americans and has for nearly eight years now. The major recognizable symptom of BDS is a continuous blame for everything bad in the universe on George W. Bush.

But for those who fear an end to the circus, fear no more. Bush Derangement Syndrome is being replaced with Global Warming Addiction. There really is very little difference between the symptoms of the two afflictions, including those things people insist on blaming on one or both people/things.

Global Warming is being blamed for everything under the sun. If you don’t believe me, have a look at this list of news stories where global warming has been blamed for the outcome.

And it only gets better or worse depending on perspective. The American Thinker shares with readers that what might appear to be “naturally occurring” weather patterns are in fact to be blamed on? You guessed it. Global warming.

Tom Remington

Technorati , , , , ,

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

Posted on Friday, May 2nd, 2008
Under: Environment, Maine News Brief | 1 Comment »

“Common Sense Plan” For Reducing Your Energy Costs

As I was heading out the door late yesterday afternoon, my good friend Kevin from Congressman Don Young’s office sent me the below email. Congressman Young, from Alaska, is the ranking republican member of the House Committee on Natural Resources. I couldn’t help but have a laugh…….for more reasons than one.

Dear Colleague,

Is this Speaker Pelosi’s “commonsense plan” for reducing Americans’ energy costs?

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

NO! to ANWR’s 30 year, 1 million barrel per day supply of American oil

NO! to 2 Trillion Barrels of American oil shale

NO! to more clean burning natural gas

NO! to Clean Coal.

NO! to more energy exploration in the 85% of OCS off-limits to energy development

NO! to more energy exploration in the Intermountain West

NO! to more Nuclear Power

NO! to more Hydropower Energy

NO! to expediting alternative energy development

NO! to any form of energy that will provide meaningful relief from record high energy prices

NO! to 90% of the energy that fuels America’s economy

NO!! IS NOT AN ENERGY PLAN

Baby Crying

Tom Remington

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

Posted on Friday, May 2nd, 2008
Under: Environment, Maine News Brief | No Comments »

A Nonexistent Squirrel Preventing Solar Energy Plans

Mojave Ground SquirrelI have been called a lot of things for my stance against the current administering of the Endangered Species Act. This includes the abuse through manipulation, the interpretation of the ESA through the courts, the abuse of it in order to stop hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities as well as the lack of any effort to change or eliminate it in order to provide a better means of accomplishing its initial goals. I have also been called colorful things because I think environmentalist, including animal rights groups, have completely gone off the radar and I have minced no words in saying so.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, the RINO (republican in name only) governor of California, thinks the whackos have gone too far. You know it has to be bad when one of California’s own thinks so.

“It’s not just businesses that have slowed things down, it’s not just Republicans that have slowed things down, it’s also Democrats and also environmental activists sometimes that slow things down,”

These comments come from the governor in response to delays in the construction of solar energy generating facilities. One is particular is the one near Victorville, where environmentalists are adding delays to the construction because of the Mojave ground squirrel - a rare squirrel that doesn’t even live on any of the land to be used.

“Our Department of Fish and Game is slowing approval of a solar facility in Victorville. It’s because of an endangered squirrel, an endangered squirrel which has never been seen on that land where they’re supposed to build the solar plants. But if such a squirrel were around, this is the kind of area that it would like, they say.”

You read that correctly! Here we have a case of no threatened animal even living on this land and yet because the weirdos think the habitat is good enough for the squirrel, that’s reason enough. This is one classic example of what is wrong with our environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act, the interpretation and administration of the Act and proof all this needs to be changed.

For those who still believe that there’s nothing wrong with the Endangered Species Act and who think that the environmentalists are right in this, why don’t you head on out to California. I’m sure those squirrels are in need of a few more “nuts”.

Tom Remington

Technorati , , ,

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

Posted on Tuesday, April 29th, 2008
Under: California Hunting News, Endangered Species, The Absurd, Environment, Business, Stupid Human Tricks | 4 Comments »

Asking Time Magazine To Apologize To Veterans

Remember I asked you the other day if we were carrying this global warming thing just a bit too far? At issue was whether or not the cover of Time Magazine was an insult to American veterans who fought and died to keep our country free. It seems that this illness of global warming hysteria has people thinking that their “war” on global warming is the equivalent of WWII.

Here’s a reminder of what that cover looks like and now you have a chance to sign a petition asking for Time to apologize and to ask the media to report issues on global warming in an unbiased fashion.

Front Cover of Time Magazine

Tom Remington

Technorati , , , ,

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

Posted on Friday, April 25th, 2008
Under: Environment, Maine News Brief | 5 Comments »

Are We Taking This Green Thing A Bit Too Far?

For those who haven’t seen it yet, Time Magazine put the below picture as their front cover. Is this to the point of sacrilege or do you think this accurately depicts our efforts we face to stop global warming?

Front Cover of Time Magazine

Tom Remington

Technorati , , ,

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

Posted on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008
Under: Environment | 6 Comments »

How Would You Explain It If “The Front Fell Off”?

Once again being that it is an election year, need any of us be reminded of how clear, precise and intelligent the politicians can appear?

Tom Remington

Technorati

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

Posted on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008
Under: Hunting Humor, Environment | No Comments »

Buck To Doe Ratios

Maine Deer in Springtime“There must be at least 100 does for every buck I see in the woods now!” How many times have you heard that exclamation? If you’re like me, more than you care to. Hey, look! We all do our share of complaining, of which the vast majority of it is just complaining out of lack of success or basic knowledge of what you’re seeing, or better yet, what you’re not seeing.

Is it biologically possible to have 100 doe deer for every one buck? Er, um, well……I guess it could be done but I think it would have to be under controlled circumstances with a deliberate intent to skew the ratio far out of balance. I might even be wrong on this and would wager a guess it wouldn’t be a very healthy population of deer if it did exist.

The truth is, none of us completely understands deer management and in this case managing to sustain a desired sex ratio. I’m not a scientist, biologist or a magician. I have stayed in a Holiday Inn before but I honestly don’t think that qualifies me to be an authority on deer management. What I would like to do is try to get hunters to understand a little bit better about the complexities and realities of whitetail deer management and managing for desired buck to doe ratios.

I must also point out that in the wild, managing whitetail deer varies considerably, not only from region to region but state to state and even within the wildlife management districts or units within each state. Much of my information comes from managing deer in Maine. The reason for this is I think I have a better understanding of Maine’s deer management programs, I grew up in Maine and I’m getting most of my information from Maine wildlife biologists. Maine also has a decent history of producing some very large deer and this interests hunters everywhere. How deer are managed in your state could vary drastically from that of Maine. As you will see, there are just so many variables and each of those variables is forever changing adding to the challenge of deer biologists to figure this science out.

So, where do we start? Let’s start in the Garden of Eden. W…..H…..A……T!?!? Why not? God looked into the Garden of Eden (GOE) and said, “Hey, I did okay. That place will support 100 deer and I’ll call that ‘carrying capacity’” So he stocked the GOE with 50 adult male deer and 50 adult female deer. He called that a buck to doe ratio of 1:1.

I suppose God knows best but as humans we have to ask if that is the ideal ratio? Not everyone agrees with that assessment and I’m sure it can and does vary nationwide but I have heard or read where anywhere from 1 buck to 1 - 5 does is an acceptable ratio depending on the desired outcome. I think it depends on a lot of circumstances but for the intent of this discussion, let’s say achieving a 1:1 ratio is what we’re looking to do.

When spring rolls around all 50 adult female deer fawned. Probably the GOE has ideal habitat, etc., after all, the Big Guy does things right, and under those conditions most mature does will have two and sometimes three fawns. Let’s keep it simple because I confuse easily. Each doe had one fawn.

This is the GOE so there is no mortality - you know the lion lays down with the lamb thing. By mid to late summer there now are 150 deer, 50 of those are of course the fawns. Once again for simplicity sake, let’s divide the new born deer 50/50, meaning 25 were males and 25 were females.

To get a further grasp on this you need to know that the 25 female deer born that first year will not breed during their first rutting season. In theory, if the original 50 adult does all fawned one deer apiece again the following spring, there would be 200 deer and we would also still have a 1:1 sex ratio. Being that we are in the GOE, no adult deer died of old age.

The following rutting season, the first year’s does are now of breeding age. Assuming the original 50 does are still able to breed, we now have 75 adult does that will fawn in the spring. By fall there are now 275 deer, still pretty close to a 1:1 sex ratio.

I hope you see where this is going. It won’t take too long under the ideals of the GOE to be overrun with too many deer. But this of course is fantasy.

God gave man dominion over the animals so he set up a hunting season so man could eat and he could keep the number of deer at carrying capacity (100 deer AND a ratio of 1:1, this is important). God reasoned and concluded that he couldn’t just let man take any deer at any time, so he devised a plan so that he would have to take some females and some males and it had to be done in such a way so as to as closely as possible maintain a deer herd of 100 deer - 50 males and 50 females. And so God created the Any-Deer permit system.

All was great until man sinned. Winters were thrust upon Mainers, coyotes began eating deer and bears were hungry too, tired of only eating apples and black berries. Disease became an issue for us to deal with as well as people who didn’t think the laws really pertained to them, so they took whatever they wanted for game and said to heck with everyone else. Man had to work by the sweat of his brow and so he began cutting his trees down to sell to support a family.

Thrown into this mix, God really came down hard on his creation and allowed for the evolution of the politician and as such a value of dollars and no sense was also put on deer and deer hunting. Things began to get messy.

God challenged the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and told them to figure out how to take care of the deer and that’s what they’ve been trying to do ever since.

It wasn’t easy trying to figure out how many deer to allow to be taken and of what species. A bit of trial and error took place until over time records were kept and then MDIFW could get a better understanding of success rates, participation of hunters, recruitment, mortality, etc.

Let’s go back to the less confusing time in my little history lesson when hunting the deer became part of the equation. After the end of the first hunting season, if all went well, we ended up in reality with 100 or so deer. The majority of those deer were mature and of those mature deer we calculate that about half are bucks and half are does. The remainder of the herd are a mix of fawns - again, close to half males and half females. This is our “post hunt” calculations.

Remember that through all of this we want to sustain as close as we can to a 1 buck for every doe ratio. We are assuming (I hate to use that word), that all or at least nearly all of the adult female deer will fawn in the spring. Under ideal conditions, we could go ahead and figure out how many Any-Deer Permits to issue. We combine that with the number of licensed hunters we know we are going to have. With established success rates of the hunter, we think we are pretty good at figuring out how many deer will be taken during the next hunting season and how many will be female and how many male and approximately what ages those deer will be - in other words fawns or adults. This is called “pre-hunt” calculations.

If this was all we had to calculate, I might be smart enough, at least through trial and error, to keep the deer herd somewhere near on target. But, alas, this is not to be.

Lee Kantar, deer specialist and wildlife biologist at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, has been extremely helpful in providing me with information about how all this works. Let’s just say he’s been very patient as well. He told me that in Maine the average of male to female deer born in the spring is slightly in favor of the males. In other words, if 100 new fawns were born this spring, just over half would be little bucks, the rest does. He also describes the “pre-hunt” calculations this way.

1st realize that every year as part of our permitting process we calculate the pre-hunt sex ratio of bucks to does for each WMD. If the buck to doe ratio is skewed, in other words if it deviates from essentially 1 buck to 1 doe than we will adjust the doe permit levels to bring the population back to equity. Keep in mind that buck and doe mortality rates are different with bucks have much higher rates. So populations are always somewhat skewed.

Map of Maine Wildlife Management DistrictsAnother thing Kantar points out is that when you have a WMD that is way under population objectives, you can’t be managing for a 1:1 sex ratio. You reduce or completely eliminate the taking of any female deer until population objectives are reached.

There are some things that the magicians and MDIFW can rely on to be relatively consistent. Some of those things they have established by keeping accurate records since the first day that God handed over the deer management to them. As some examples, they can get a pretty close estimate on how many people will buy a hunting license and go hunting. They can estimate because of record keeping, what percentage of those hunters will actually bag a deer. They know that with “X” number of Any-Deer Permits handed out, there is a certain success rate that goes with that. They also know what percentages of the deer taken with an Any-Deer Permit, will be fawn male deer, fawn female deer, adult does and adult bucks. They know these things because they keep accurate records.

Other known things will be the data they collect from samples taken during hunting season at tagging stations. We also know that they are constantly collecting data from their winter monitoring stations and field observations through the year. They have to have as much solid unchanging information as they possibly can. The more, the easier their job in managing this herd AND sustaining that desired sex ratio.

Are you confused yet? Well, I am but I’m trying to make some sense out of this. It gets even more complicated.

Mind you that even though I categorize this information as being a “known” bit of information, it does vary. Here’s an example. As I said, MDIFW has a pretty good idea how many licenses they will sell for deer hunting. From that they estimate how many will take a deer. This comes from comparisons of previous years’ data that tells what the success rate is. What they don’t know and can’t control is hunter participation. Simply buying a license is no guarantee that 1) a hunter will bag a deer, 2) that the hunter will hunt the same amount of time as previous seasons or will even hunt at all, and 3) what factors would increase or decrease hunter effort, like bad weather or good weather or ideal tracking conditions, etc.

A mathematician, should be able to take all this information I’ve given to this point and come up with a algorithmic formula that would tell him how many Any-Deer Permits to give out for each WMD based on objectives. We know we want to maintain 100 deer in the Garden of Eden with a sex ratio of 1:1. How hard can that be. If nothing else, we can make a trip or two into the Garden just before hunting season and do a head count, then we’ll no for sure how many does to take and how many bucks, right? Fantasy!

Well, the algorithmic formula isn’t that far fetched but the information used in that formula gets more and more complicated. Let’s quickly recap. We started out with 50 does and 50 bucks which grew to 150 deer. We know that a bit more than half of the new-born deer were males, the rest females. So we have roughly 75 male deer now and 75 females not all of which are adult and of breeding age.

We got to figure out how to end the hunting season with 50 bucks and 50 does.

If we have statistics that tell us how many people will hunt, those same statistics will tell us how many will shoot a buck and how many will shoot a doe, or better defined here as an antlerless deer. Of the antlerless deer taken, statistics will tell us approximately how many are mature does (breedable), how many are fawn males and how many fawn females.

I think it is fair and reasonable to state that because of good record keeping, it is easier to use the methods and tools I’ve described, to keep a deer population in check, increase it or decrease it, whatever the goals for a certain Wildlife Management District are.

Well, that was simple! Not quite. We’ve only just begun really. We have to add to this magical algorithmic formula an array of variables and unknowns. I probably won’t cover them all but I’ll get enough to help you better understand and get a picture of where I’m coming from.

I look at it from two perspectives. What kills deer and what makes them thrive? Most of these factors are things we cannot control, are ever changing and difficult at best to predict but all play an important role in knowing how to manage the herd. Let’s take a look. First the things that make deer thrive.

Deer thrive best in an ideal habitat. In Maine, the habitat will vary greatly. We all know that if deer have the right kinds of foods and ample supplies, they will grow big and healthy. When there’s ample food, some magical little voice inside the female deer will tell them it’s alright to have more than one deer (I’m just kidding of course. The doe deer can’t consciously make that decision and there is no little voice).

To some degree deer will biological adjust how many deer they have depending on the health of their surroundings. On the opposite end of that, the health of the fawns will depend on the same surroundings. More on the negative aspects of this in a bit.

In Maine, we know that deer need places to go and hang out in the winter that provides them with as much natural protection from the elements as is possible as well as some food, although not the most nutritious. These, or course, are called deer yards or deer wintering areas.

In short, when deer have an abundant and varied diet, ideal weather conditions, few stresses and a healthy habitat to carry out all these things, they will prosper and prosper quite rapidly if allowed.

Now to look at what kills them or negatively affects their health and survivability. The obvious negative factors are to take the positive ones I’ve just given you and turn them around. When food becomes scarce, the weather is extreme with limited habitat, including wintering areas, compounded with stresses from predators, including man, things can begin to turn south.

But there are more negative things that can affect the deer herd. There’s disease, poaching, out of balance species of predators, man’s influence on habitat through development and forestry practices and other natural occurrences like plant disease and fungi, ticks, chronic wasting disease (not found in Maine) and more.

When we look at every possible aspect of what influences the deer, both negatively and positively, we quickly see that most of it is never constant. As a matter of fact, much of it is the opposite. If the guys and gals at MDIFW are intelligent enough to devise an algorithmic formula under ideal conditions, just think how difficult it is when these conditions are rapidly changing right before our eyes.

Below, I am going to give you a bit of information that I find fascinating. If you’re like me, you’ll have to read it more than once to get a decent enough grasp on the concept to be able to ask the question, “Am I, in fact, making this management of deer too complicated?” *Note* anything surrounded by [ ], I added for clarification.

Now, this is something–depending on how much hunting pressure a herd has it can only become skewed [sex ratio] to a certain point based on differential mortality of bucks and does and recruitment rates. In Maine pressure is relatively low to moderate compared to most whitetail states. On average our annual buck mortality is around 45%, many states are more in the 60 to 70% range.

Now you can test the skewed sex ratio deal. If you take a population of 1000 deer, 500 adult bucks and 500 adult does and then apply known mortality rates to the bucks and does, then apply known production, fawn mortality, and recruitment rates to this population, after 5 years the sex ratio will remain the same. So for example in a population where annual adult buck mortality is 45%, annual adult doe mortality is 25%, fawn mortality is 40%, and the recruitment sex ratio is 112:100 males to females (Maine data), then this population starts out even with an adult sex ratio of 1 to 1, after year 5 the buck to doe ratio increases to 1.2 does to 1 buck and stays that way every year after.

You can apply different known mortality rates from Maine data and try to skew the ratio. I took an extreme value of annual adult buck mortality of 67% (Heavily hunted population), an adult doe mortality of 25%, a fawn mortality rate of 51% and after 5 years the sex ratio works out to 1.7 does to 1 buck.

Biologically it is hard to make the case for adult buck to doe ratios being more skewed than 2 does for every 1 buck. You start to get skewed when you have high annual buck mortality and extremely low doe mortality. Also keep in mind that we manage on a fairly large landscale, so locally and in smaller areas different things could be happening.

This is all very well and good and as I said, fascinating but it depends on one important aspect. You have to believe the data MDIFW is providing and the formulas they use. If you don’t have that trust, none of this really matters. Is it perfect? No and I think Kantar or any of the other biologists would say so but it seems to work quite well. Can sex ratios become skewed in Maine? I believe they can but given the information provided to me, this would mean that MDIFW biologists would have to have completely lost track of what’s going on within any of WMDs and ignored it. Kantar himself gives reasons why a sex ratio would become out of whack - high buck mortality, low doe mortality.

When I began this piece, it started with a fictitious quote saying that there must be 100 does to every buck seen by hunters. Perhaps biologically, you have come to better understand that this probably isn’t true. Lee Kantar took some extra time to provide me with some reasons why we might not be seeing the number of bucks that we would like to.

Now why do people observe more does (sometimes a lot more does) than bucks in the field? A number of things are at play here:

1. Bucks and does use habitats and forage differently at different times of the year. Large bodied deer (bucks) can afford to forage on food that is less nutritious than does, in other words larger deer can eat more low quality food to maintain body condition while smaller bodied deer need better forage to maintain and increase body mass. So females are seen along field edges and openings where they may find better nutrition versus the woods or swamp buck.

2. It is more common to observe groups of deer (many times a social group of related deer–i.e., adult female with yearlings and fawns) versus a single deer (buck)–although buck bachelor groups form as well.

3. An observed group of antlerless deer will likely include fawn bucks, sometimes yearling bucks where antlers are not apparent.

4. Bucks are notorious for being dodgy. We have done deer drives in exclosures with known numbers of deer and never see all the deer. Research has been conducted on large exclosure where they have gone into the fenced area and harvested all the deer using all kinds of methods. Getting every last one proves extremely difficult, and in a classic experiment in the mid-west, after they thought they had killed all the deer, they eventually found one last deer-a mature buck.

5. During the hunting season, especially in areas where there is lots of hunting pressure, the sex and age dynamics of the herd is being changed before your eyes. The greatest cause of buck mortality is hunting and that mortality is often condensed into a 4 week period where the herd dynamics are rapidly changing. So those are a few points.

I would like to once again point out that I am not an “authority” on deer management. The intent of this writing is to help hunters, particularly those who insist buck to doe ratios are extremely out of whack, a chance to better understand what it is they are seeing, not seeing and why.

I probably have missed some aspects of this debate and may have even misrepresented some but I believe the time and research I put into this article it is accurate. It is not intended to be a research or study document, just information that I hope will compliment your knowledge of Maine’s whitetail deer management and whitetail deer in general.

Tom Remington

Technorati , , , ,

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

Posted on Friday, April 18th, 2008
Under: Maine Outdoor News, Maine Hunting News, Deer Hunting, Hunting Education, Wildlife Science, Predators, Environment | 6 Comments »

Maine And Vermont Right Next Door, Yet Worlds Apart With Deer Management

Maine, New Hampshire and VermontMaine is tucked up into the far northeast corner of the United States. On its southern boarder is the Atlantic Ocean. Her eastern boarder touches with New Brunswick, Canada and to the north and northwest, Quebec, Canada. About the only boarder of the state that mimics a straight line of any kind is the western boarder that looks over into the state of New Hampshire.

Vermont is not very far away at all. At its farthest reaches of the Northeast Kingdom, the state is separated from Maine by perhaps only 25 miles of New Hampshire. Down south, the distance between Maine and Vermont at its widest point might stretch to 85 miles.

If you look at the map I provided, I drew a straight orange line across the northern boarder of Vermont, eastward into and across Maine. Mind you this line does not follow any longitudinal boundaries but is only for comparisons of geographic regions.

The reason for this is so that you can see that Maine and Vermont are not very far apart and that the southern part of the state of Maine appears to compare somewhat geographically with the entire state of Vermont. But does it?

For those who have been following, Maine just recently made public a report from the Northern and Eastern Maine Deer Task Force, a group commissioned to study why there are so few deer in northern and eastern Maine and what can be done about it.

Unfortunately for Maine deer hunters, this past winter was a bad one. Lots of snow that came early and often, piling the white stuff in excess of 200 inches in some locals. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is rating this years winter severity as high as 14% above what would be considered normal - that would be Wildlife Management District #1.

Consequently, MDIFW Commissioner Roland “Dan” Martin announced last week that Any-Deer Permits were going to be cut drastically for the 2008 deer hunting season. Maine, like several other states, uses the issuance of doe permits or in Maine, Any-Deer Permits, as perhaps the most important tool to regulate the deer populations to meet management target goals.

In the Department’s Agency Rulemaking Proposal, Commissioner Martin outlines his recommendation that 51,125 Any Deer Permits be made available to hunters this season in 13 of the state’s 29 Wildlife Management Districts, a decrease of 15,150 permits from last year and a reduction of seven management districts that were open to Antlerless Deer Permit holders last year.

While this is all taking place in Maine, only a stone’s throw to the west is Vermont, who also in an announcement last week, said they are going to double antlerless permits because they have far too many deer in most locations. Not only are they going to double the antlerless deer permits, they are also going to up the bag limit from two to three deer. How can this be? How can Maine have such a devastating winter that is going to result in slashing antlerless permits in virtually every Wildlife Management District and yet Vermont is looking to double theirs AND up the bag limit?

I grew up in Western Maine only 10 miles from the New Hampshire boarder and about 50 miles from Vermont. I am quite familiar with a lot of the geographic differences and I can tell you that at times winters in Maine and Vermont can be quite dissimilar.

Getting back to the line I drew on the map, everything in Maine north of that orange line is like no-man’s land. Heavily forested with mostly harsh to extreme winter weather every season. It was the southern districts of Maine that I wondered how different it can be than Vermont.

I fired off an email to Lee Kantar, deer specialist and wildlife biologist for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. I gave him a link to the story about Vermont doubling permits and asked how much different can it be between Maine and Vermont? I have great respect for Lee and all the biologists at MDIFW. They work hard and do a remarkable job considering their limitations through budgets and the pressures of politics that are always a threat to good science.

Lee admitted he wasn’t well versed on Vermont’s deer management programs but did share some thoughts on the differences in geography.

Vermont does have a substantially different geography. They are about 75% forested and 25% of the land base is in agricultural - that is 1.5 million of 6 million+ acres. Maine with all its land has about 1.25 million ag acres and a lot more forest. That in general is a much different dynamic for Vermont’s deer. The Green Mountains run up the spine of the state and is national forest land, that in combination with their Act 250 law provides additional protections to their deer wintering areas that we do not have. They also have an overall milder climate.

Act 250, or the Land Use and Development Act, was created to better manage land use and growth in Vermont. One key aspect of Act 250 says, “provides habitat for breeding, feeding, resting, and shelter to both game and nongame species of wildlife.” This is also expanded out to say that you can’t put development into deer wintering yards.

Kantar shared a bit of information he received from some folks in Vermont about their winter.

It’s amazing how variable winter has been across the northeast. We’ve had a good bit of snow but also had major thaws in Dec., Jan., Feb., and March. Unless we have some late winter storms with deep snow persisting into April, we’ll be seeing our 4th generally mild winter in a row, excepting a few local lake-effect areas.

He says that Maine’s winter will no doubt go down in the history books as being in the top five in regards to wildlife mortality.

Maine’s Wildlife Management DistrictsKantar says that in Maine, each year they begin the process of trying to determine what has happened from the end of deer hunting season until now, to see what this is going to spell out for the deer herd statewide. They look at each Wildlife Management District separately through an entire host of available data.

When we start the management decision process for our any deer permitting it begins with a look at how each district has faired over the last 7 years, where our population is in respect to district goals and what does the balance of mortality and recruitment look like for each district. Has mortality and recruitment patterns changed over the last year?

This is a good time to point out that even though Commissioner Martin has announced plans to reduce Any-Deer Permits for next season, the projected cuts are very much subject to change. Many people don’t realize that parts of Maine are in a very critical time for deer to be able to survive the winter. A long, prolonged winter season, delaying green up and weather that is difficult on fawns that will be born, will determine how many fawns live and also the nearly starved deer, whether they will pull through or not.

Maine has 28 winter severity monitoring systems. With this data and data collected over the past years, biologists will calculate out a winter mortality rate, all based on historic and current events collected in their data. Kantar points out the winter severity will vary all across the state. For those of us who live or have lived there, we know that weather in Fort Kent can certainly be completely different in Dover-Foxcroft, Eastport or Bridgton.

Once a mortality rate for this year has been calculated, it is compared with the 15-year mean.

This means how does this year compare with the average winter. Is mortality above and beyond “normal”? In the 07-08 preliminary analysis we see that winter severity and therefore mortality was above normal across the state. In WMD 24 along the coast it was as little as 2% above the norm, while in WMD 1 it was estimated at 14% above the norm.

From here biologists must then figure out how to make adjustments to the allotment of Any-Deer Permits to compensate for calculated losses in order to stay within the management plan for each WMD. Obviously, the higher the winter mortality, the greater the compensation - meaning fewer Any-Deer Permits issued. These of course will vary WMD to WMD depending on whether each district’s plan is seeking to reduce, maintain or increase deer numbers.

If this sounds complicated, it’s not. This is the simplified version of deer management and the utilization of the Winter Severity Index calculations. Deer management is complicated, using factors some of us have never heard of, say nothing about understand.

Mr. Kantar answered my questions in a more than satisfactory manner but I still had a couple more questions that I wanted to get answers for that also pertain to deer management and directly to the severe winters. He promised to get back to me but here is what I wanted to know.

I wanted to know how the management of predators, namely black bears and coyotes, are figured into deer mortality rates and the winter severity index. This is not something that can be easily answered. Hunters all across Maine are fed up with coyotes killing off the deer. Many, myself included, believe there are far too many coyotes in Maine and would like to see something done.

What I would like to know and pass on to readers is how biologists monitor coyote and black bear populations and the role they play in the winter mortality rate we’ve just been talking about.

The second question concerns how to explain to hunters about buck to doe ratios so that it is understood? I’ve written about this before but mostly I feel as though it is falling on deaf ears and those that refuse to believe that buck to doe ratios don’t become 1 buck in 100 does.

Kantar promised to take two Tylenol and call me in the morning.

Tom Remington

Technorati , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Posted on Tuesday, April 15th, 2008
Under: Maine Outdoor News, Maine Hunting News, Deer Hunting, Wildlife Science, Predators, Environment | 3 Comments »

America’s Hatred Towards Big Oil And The Endangered Species Act