People with personal agendas assume the majority of people are ignorant and swallow their foolish nonsense without uttering a word or even questioning ridiculous reasoning and flawed logic.

Found in the Sacramento Bee, via PR Newswire, an article claims that the increase in ticks and tick-borne disease is on the rise in the United States due to forest fragmentation. The article describes fragmentation as: “large woodlands are split into smaller, more isolated sections for such uses as building roads, shopping centers or housing developments.”

Blaming forest fragmentation for increased ticks and disease might be an easier pill to swallow if the reasoning used to convince people that building anything is bad, made any real sense. Let’s first consider that this article, while it doesn’t come right out and say it precisely, implies that because of this so-called forest fragmentation and increased roads, chopped up forests, shopping centers and housing developments, there aren’t enough forests left for ticks to live in, therefore they are forced to live in our backyards.

Not that one chart of information is the answer to all tick problems, before a person makes such claims, perhaps they should consider the chart below. (Also found here.)

As compared to 1880, all 16 counties in the state of Maine have more forested areas in 1995. Many of those counties have remarkable increases. Consider Cumberland County, where Maine’s largest city, Portland, can be found. In 1880, 50% of the county was forested. Today that number is over 70%. Statewide, Maine was 62% forested in 1880 and in 1995 that number has grown to just shy of 90%. While this only speaks for Maine, which is heavily infested with ticks this season, one has to question a person’s conclusions about forest fragmentation and tick and tick-related disease growth.

But this isn’t all. The article states that with more people building and moving into the suburbs: “human and pet interaction with ticks and tick hosts naturally escalated.” No argument here. Here’s a quote from Michael W. Dryden, DVM, MS, PhD, a distinguished professor of parasitology at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University:

There are clearly more ticks in more places than ever before, and a big part of that equation is forest fragmentation.

The fine doctor’s claim is that there are more ticks because there’s less forests, and forests are where ticks need to live and therefore with less forests, due to fragmentation, there are more ticks. Am I getting this right?

The article further states that: “The conditions created by forest fragmentation are conducive to the proliferation of ticks.” According to the article, ticks are forced to feed more on the blood of their hosts, i.e. deer and white-footed mice, “since many other species that ticks feed off of cannot survive in fragmented environments. So, both the disease-carrying animals and infectious ticks are left to multiply.”

This might help explain a claim that there are more disease-infected ticks but it certainly runs counter to the claim that there are more ticks because there’s less forest or that it’s broken up. Isn’t it contradictory to claim that fewer species can survive in fragmented forests while at the same time claiming that ticks and deer and mice are growing prolifically in fragmented forests?

Clearly forest fragmentation is not a “big part of the equation” in the growing number of ticks in this country. I would concur that perhaps the increase in diseased ticks comes from a claim that other species that ticks feed on don’t do well in fragmented forests. I don’t have any data to support or refute that claim.

That still leaves us with some answered questions, however. Why are there more deer living in people’s backyards in these so-called fragmented forests? There are a few factors to consider. People build beautiful homes and create a great walk-up restaurant of fine shrubbery and grasses for deer to feed on. Deer also are moving out of the forests to escape overblown populations of predators, i.e. wolves, coyotes, bears, lions, bobcat, etc. Deer aren’t stupid. They will go where the food is fine and the risk of being eaten alive by large predators is greatly reduced. That’s a fact.

With clearly more forests available today than 100 years ago, and the efforts by environmentalists and animal rights groups to protect predators, deer are drawn and forced into closer proximity with people. Naturally deer are a host of the ticks. They engorge themselves on the blood of deer and drop off and sometimes landing on people and biting them.

To claim that forest fragmentation causes more ticks is bogus and smells terribly of agenda-driven rhetoric. I call bull! If the concern is over people and pets, let’s get it right. Help people understand how to make their backyards non attractive to deer or other tick host species. In addition, educate people to the truths about how predators effect deer and other prey species and allow for the sensible control of those predators to create healthier forests and wildlife. Certainly disease-carrying ticks being transported around by deer does not for a healthy forest make.

Tom Remington

RMEF leaders say the population forecast defines an alarmingly short window for conservationists to help shape the heart of elk country before an additional 20 million people are living in the region by 2030.

““We have to work with an increasing sense of urgency,”” said RMEF President and CEO David Allen. ““We often talk about conserving wild places for our kids and grandkids to enjoy, and that’s powerful motivation. But we’re on the doorstep of landscape-scale changes that will affect current generations, too, if we don’t act quickly. Some of us elk hunters could lose our traditional way of life before we even have a chance to pass it on.””

According to the Census Bureau, states along and west of the Rocky Mountains will see an average of 28 percent growth by 2030. For all states eastward, the bureau anticipates an average growth rate of just 14 percent.

About 90 percent of all elk in North America occur in the rapid-growth states.

RMEF’s five ways to prepare:

1. Good Planning. Any profusion of poorly planned subdivisions, sprawl or related activity could accelerate loss, fragmentation and degradation of elk habitat. Consideration of these areas is increasingly important for developers, city planners, highway engineers, food and energy producers, etc. To help, RMEF contributes habitat data to mapping programs available to professionals who wish to identify and avoid critical areas of elk country, including:

Winter Range— – In much of the West, some of the most attractive tracts for development are lower elevation lands that also happen to be historic winter range for elk. Abundance and quality of winter range are limiting factors in the size of a region’s’ elk herd.

Calving Grounds – —Like winter range, elk calving grounds also are used traditionally. Once displaced from primary areas, pregnant cows will settle for secondary habitats that offer less cover, space, forage and water.

Summer Range— – Lush green summer range is vital to the health of elk as they nourish calves, evade predators and enter the rut. But research shows that extended drought and overgrown forests are negatively affecting some elk herds, especially in areas where predators are undermanaged.

Migration Corridors – —Highly mobile elk do best with unimpeded travel routes between habitat types.

2. Land Protection. Conserving strategic tracts of open space is a key to offsetting human population growth. Tools include purchasing land from willing sellers and conveying it to public ownership, land swaps and conservation easements. To date, RMEF has used these and more to help permanently protect over 1 million acres of elk country.

3. Habitat Stewardship. Managing protected habitat for optimum productivity is ever more important. Prescribe burning, treating noxious weeds, forest thinning to create early seral habitat, rejuvenating meadows and wetlands, improving riparian zones and adding guzzlers are among the ways to help habitat hold more wildlife. To date, RMEF has used these and more to help enhance over 5 million acres of elk country.

4. Predator Management. Much of elk country no longer resembles its original form. People made it smaller. Fire suppression made it thick and overgrown. Noxious weed infestations made forage problems even worse. Elk are amazingly adaptable but in certain areas they are proving unable to handle the added challenge of burgeoning predator populations. Calf survival rates are too low to sustain some herds for the future. Current and expected habitat conditions dictate responsible management of wolves, bears and lions on balance with other wildlife and human needs. RMEF is pressing this issue on several fronts.

5. Keep Hunting. With the anticipated population growth in the West, open space and opportunities for hunting could be reduced. Loss of hunters will translate to less wildlife management and less funding for conservation overall, which will compound all of the above problems. RMEF is prioritizing projects that enhance public hunting access and strengthening America’s understanding of the important conservation heritage of hunting.

RMEF membership, now at 184,135 and growing, has set records for four consecutive years. With continued support, RMEF will be positioned to keep making a difference over the critical 18 years to come.

For more information, visit www.rmef.org or call 800-CALL ELK.

This is a stark lesson.

Hypocrisy reveals myriad things in a society, one of which is the manifestation of people’s incompetency to make legitimate judgements about much of anything worthwhile. Hypocrisy is dishonesty and when we exemplify that we are also showing the world our anger and hatred, all of which drives our bias.

A current example playing out in this nation is the joke telling dealing with the topic of President Barack Obama’s revelation that when he was a kid growing up in Indonesia he ate dog. Do rational people care about this beyond the obvious, that either the president’s family was poor and that’s all they could afford or eating dog was acceptable table fare?

Even though I think we as a people are losing our ability to laugh, I still believe that existing in a society that considers laughing healthy, we have always had a strong yen for humor. Once, every comedian and late night talk show host made gobs of money telling jokes about presidents. We all laughed no matter who was in the White House. Of course some presidents became better targets of the quipsters, mostly dependent upon what they did or said. I even recall impersonators like Rich Little, who struggled to impersonate some presidents and then got plenty of mileage from others, sometimes by just the simple way they looked or the tone and quality of their voice. Think of the actor John Wayne, who had a distinct walk and a voice to go with it.

Today, people too often tend to limit their laughter based on political bias. This is where the hypocrisy comes into play. A joke about George Bush may make some laugh and others not, taking offense that they are being made fun of or that somehow it’s not fair. If the same comedian told a joke about Barack Obama, the roles become reversed. Don’t misunderstand me here. This hypocrisy swings in all directions and the worst kind is that coming from those who refuse to recognize it for what it is.

Let’s also be honest, if that’s possible anymore. Barack Obama is half black and half white. We have struggled as a society to get beyond racism and bigotry and as such, I’m positive in my assessment that a lot of restraint has been shown in targeting Barack Obama for jokes out of fear of just what has happened; accusations of racism.

President Obama ate dog as a child. What’s wrong with that? I’ve written about eating dog in our history and that eating dog is still the cuisine of some societies. When President Jefferson sent Captains Lewis and Clark to find a passage to the Pacific Ocean, neither of the men or their expedition would have survived had they not eaten dog. But as humans, we are prone to make jokes about it, I think some because we are uncomfortable with talking about the subject, but mostly because humor defines us.

On the website The People’s Cube, an entire array of photoshopped pictures depicting President Obama eating or chasing after dogs with the intent of eating them, can be found.

On John McCain’s Twitter page he posted a photo of his son’s bull dog and ends his Tweet by saying, “I’m sorry Mr. President, he’s not on the menu!”

When asked at a press conference, White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, struggled to answer the question as to whether the President was aware of all the jokes but he couldn’t resist making a joke about the jokes.

If you click on the link to John McCain’s Twitter page, you can read some of the comments irate people left to John McCain about his sick sense of humor.

But what about the hypocrisy? Recall, if you will, that not long ago, there were a lot of people very upset about the movie “The Grey”. Two issues played out here. The movie was about a plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere in Alaska. Survival was key, i.e. finding food and prevent becoming food. The plot is about these survivors fending off a hungry pack of wolves. The first issue of outrage was that the makers of the movie dared depict wolves in a truthful setting; that they are bloodthirsty killers. The second issue is that the wolves they killed, they ate.

Hang on for a second. This is a movie! But yet there was still outrage. In addition, before filming of the movie began, the cast and staff tried eating some wolf meat in order to gain a better understanding of what they were up against. Doing so has “dogged” them ever since. (See what I mean?)

The point is there was outrage over this and I recall reading in several places among the media outlets, including Online, that people just did not eat dog. That our society (American) has never eaten dog, etc. etc. etc. This is what prompted me to dig back through the Lewis and Clark Expedition journals to recount all the times they not only ate dog meat buy preferred it over deer or elk. In addition this dog meat they ate, included domestic dogs they bought from the natives and coyotes and wolves they were able to kill during their journey.

The hypocrisy here is that while there was outrage that dogs were depicted as being eaten in a movie, there was no outrage at the disclosure that President Obama actually did eat dog as a kid. Instead, their biased anger is directed at those who chose to make jokes about it, seemingly now supporting the eating of dog….well, depending upon who did the eating I guess.

One can argue that most of these jokes originated from people or organizations that are working to elect a different president, but why is this all of a sudden different or deserve a different level of scrutiny? Campaigns bring out the worst in everybody.

What the reasons are that President Obama ate dog as a kid, I don’t know, nor do I care. I think some of the jokes are funny. I find some a bit over the top. I certainly can understand a person who adores dogs, finding offense in some of these photos and jokes. And I find the same level of humor disseminated the same way regardless of which side of the political aisle they walk on.

Tom Remington

Probably so but from my perspective I think a few more questions should be considered and addressed from a scientific perspective and not one based in emotions or the widespread desire to protect all animals regardless and in particular predators. Let’s examine some statements and, if nothing else, raise a few questions.

Authorities say they believe this is the first ever reported or confirmed case of rabies in a black bear in Virginia. I have no reason to doubt that assumption. Authorities warned people to “only become alarmed if the bears exhibit highly unusual behavior.” While good advice, bears and other animals can be rabid and not be displaying the obvious and unusual behavior this bear did. Officials should bring that point up.

We also read this statement:

But authorities doubt there are any more rabid bears out there.

And why not? Is their doubt based on current knowledge of what’s going on or are they relying strictly on any notion that there has never been another known case? Consider more statements.

Just to have one is really unusual, and it would be, I think, near impossible for another bear to have it.

In past history, this may be true. But, what if conditions have changed on the ground? What if some things that “naturally” may have overwhelmingly reduced any chances of a bear contracting rabies and the odds of that bear passing it on, have changed to increase those odds?

The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries states, according to the article:

The most likely way for a bear to get rabies is, just as for a human, a bite from some other animal that’s already infected.

Logic would tell us that if the bear contracted rabies by being bitten by another rabid animal (VDGIF tells us that raccoons, skunks, foxes and coyotes and the leading culprits) that if those animals that normally contract rabies grew in numbers, the odds of the bear contracting rabies would increase.

Another statement by a VDGIF officials:

Bears are solitary most of the time, so they aren’t likely to transmit rabies to one another.

What if that “most of the time” got reduced to “some of the time” because of certain conditions, i.e. more bears, more coyotes, more racoons, etc.?

Officials, in attempting to explain away the event and downplay it, using information they received immediately from the dead bear, concluded, “It’s really unlikely that she [the female bear] was around any other bears.” I revert back to my previous claim that that level of unlikelihood diminishes with an increase in bear population. The conclusion appears to be based on their supposition that the bear was alone and that bears are usually alone, that the bear did not have cubs and that Virginia is not in the middle of breeding season. Are officials also not considering that there may be more rabies in other species? Authorities claim no increase in reported cases of rabies in other animals, but that doesn’t always tell the real story.

There’s certainly no need to cause some kind of panic here about rabid bears running out of the woods to kill people, but there are some facts people should consider, including fish and wildlife officials. Predator protection has become vogue in this country and worldwide. With this predator protection, populations of predators such as bears, coyotes, wolves, foxes, etc. increase. With an increased population the odds go up considerably for the spread of infectious diseases, including rabies, simply because the odds increase that these animals will run into each other more often.

Consider also that rabid animals’ behavior changes and they think nothing of attacking something for seemingly no reason; the bear attacking the two men are an example. A rabid coyote would think nothing of attacking a bear and spreading rabies. Odds may be slim but under the right circumstances, those odds can be significantly reduced.

In addition to the predator protection efforts by groups and individuals, people post their land and don’t want anyone on their property hunting and trapping. This causes increased populations of animals that will carry rabies.

Reduced numbers of hunters and trappers overall, combined with efforts from anti-hunting and animal rights organizations, adds to the increase in the numbers of all game species, often to unhealthy levels.

Each state’s fish and wildlife department, if they are doing their jobs thoroughly, will have a good handle on the conditions on the ground; that is if they ever get out of the office and in the field. If I were at VDGIF, I wouldn’t be spending so much time telling the citizens how rare it is for a bear to contract rabies. I would be considering that being that it is so rare, what’s going on that it happened?

Tom Remington

I’m not sure where to draw the line here on what is intelligence and ignorance. I’ll leave that up to you.

While we weren’t looking ;how wildlife management has changed! Fish and Game Departments are no longer that despite the many , many billions of sportsmen’s dollars that sportsmen have poured into wildlife and the wildlife agencies entrusted to protect the game in our states. Montana FW&P needs to focus on the original constitutional and lawful intent of the creation of their department under the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, the only one of its kind in the world. The model’s two basic principles—that our fish and wildlife belong to all North American citizens, and are to be managed in such a way that their populations will be sustained forever. As Governor my appointees , agency and relationship with the counties will have a creed; “People above predators”.. This creed will be enforced to cleanse our wildlife agency of agenda driven non -consumptive promoters who have had their way for far too long. The adherence to the creed and the success of the fish and game department can only be measured by the return of the Shiras moose, the restoration of big horn sheep numbers, and healthy elk and deer herds based on multiple standards in each traumatized district adhering to 50 year averages from the brink of wolf caused near extinction. This will be a condition of employment on a going forward basis for our game managers who will be mostly native Montanans Schools of higher learning pump out individuals who don’t know or respect the North American Wildlife Conservation Model or our Montana values that I memorialized and had codified in 2005 HJR 029

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Our customs , culture, traditions and values are guaranteed in NEPA the National Environmental Policy Act which is the governing law above the Endangered Species Act. Due to a decade of flawed , fraudulent science as a result of court delayed wolf control we are now in a wildlife emergency state . As governor I will declare that emergency. The counties and / or the governor can intervene with the law squarely on their side in this extreme additive predation emergency state and restore the egregious damage done and threat to: public health, commerce, public safety, private property, game herds, livestock production and pets done by extreme wolf densities in what was promoted before wolves were released as a “non -essential experiment”.

Congress has breached the public trust with it’s failure to define the mission of the USFWS. Since Congress has failed to do their duty and has created a forced wolf based “reintroduction” extreme predator density state of emergency in Montana. The county commissions and or the Governor must declare that state of emergency and take action to protect our game like the Shiras moose and big horn sheep which are destined for extinction themselves as well as our $237.6 million per year hunting industry{as per the USFWS 2001} . Rivalli County recently quantified that an out of state hunter used to spend on average $10,600 when he came to hunt in Montana to hunt.

The Endangered Species Act is for saving species from extinction, NOT for letting the USFWS and Marxist progressives take over the country in compliance with the first plank of the Communist Manifesto and the UN’s Agenda 21 . It is time to stop the “Distinct Population Segment” charade which is about controlling land and people. The “historic range” scam allows the USFWS to extend “recovery” further afield than ever imagined or was promised to the courts, Congress or provided for in the pre wolf “reintroduction” science and it’s profoundly flawed computer model. “Wolves for Yellowstone Vol 1,1992″ was the deal that was promised when the recovery plan was built; then, through litigation and it’s stall tactics, a bait and switch was crammed down on the entire American west .The bigger issue is “historic range” where the wolf was fraudulently used allowing “Distinct Population Segment” into an American nightmare. “Expand to the entire former range” is a full frontal assault on the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The problems are very real and escalating on a geometric basis.State and federal bureaucrats are aggressively obstructing with policy and withholding funding for lawful lethal wolf control when A.P.H.I.S attempts to control problem wolf packs . Sport hunting and the myth of epizootic disease controlling wolf population growth is scientific fraud.

To defend private property , the cornerstone of a “free enterprise system”, we must bifurcate the laws, attitudes in agencies and enforcement differentiated between public and private lands.There is a big difference between sport hunting and predator control.

My Administration will make it’s policy clear between sport hunting on public lands and predator control on private property , in defense of private property. Land owners will not be required to seek permission, fear prosecution, or be confined by licences or bag limits.Land owners will be given wide discretion to determine the need for lethal predator control., the staff of professionals that he needs to control wolves and the methods of taking problem wolves on his private property. This means that there is no such thing as “fair chase” on private land. Those engaged in predator control must be allowed to operate during all hours , not just daylight. Electronic or other calls can be used, illuminated optics, artificial light, night vision, sound suppressors, bait,same-day fly & shoot.

Experienced wolf hunters and trappers in defense of private property will be trained in protocol , terms standards and conditions and given a blanket open licence jointly granted by the DOL & FW&P as they pursue as agents , the defense of private property. The harvested hides and pre-specified internal organs will be taken into custody from each harvested wolf and turned over to the state of Montana who will test for Echinococcus granulosus and 28 other diseases that wolves are vectors for and make those results a matter of public record so disease mapping can begin in real time and make all this information available to Montana public health officials and the Center for Disease control so Montana health care providers can make accurate diagnosis and treat Montanans if and when there is a risk. The state will, after the hides and organs are examined , send those hides for tanning and resale into the marketplace or returned to the control agent who will be paid with his choice of either the tanned hide or $1,000 per wolf taken on private property.