Coalition calls for FDA to halt approval of genetically engineered salmon

Yesterday afternoon a coalition of 11 food safety, environmental, consumer and fisheries organizations sent a letter to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) calling for a halt to its approval of a genetically engineered (GE) salmon after learning that the company’s – AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. – research site was contaminated with a new strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA), the deadly fish flu that is devastating fish stocks around the world.

“This new information calls into question the reliability of AquaBounty’s data and the validity of its claims that their fish are safe for the environment” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “The FDA must respond appropriately and conduct their own environmental impact statement that looks at a broad range of environmental risks from these genetically engineered salmon, including the risk of spreading diseases such as ISA and antibiotic use for other diseases.”<<<Read the Rest>>>

California Bill to Label GE Fish Fails

AB 88—the California bill which would have required that all genetically engineered (GE) fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling—failed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee today by a vote of 9-7. AB 88 was stalled in Appropriations last year, and was held-over for reintroduction this session by the bill’s author, Assembly member Huffman.<<<Read the Rest>>>

Consumer Groups Petition FDA to Ban GE Salmon as an Unsafe Food Additive

Today consumer groups Food & Water Watch, Consumers Union, and the Center for Food Safety submitted a formal petition asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to classify and evaluate AquaBounty’s “AquAdvantage” genetically engineered (GE) salmon and all of its components as a food additive. The groups’ legal petition contends that the current agency review process that treats GE salmon only as a new animal drug is insufficient to protect public health, and that the agency is required by law to review the GE salmon under what should be a more rigorous process for any novel substance added to food.

“The data FDA has on GE salmon, which were supplied by Aquabounty, are incomplete, biased, and cannot be relied upon to show that the GE salmon is safe to consume,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “Aquabounty’s own study showed that GE salmon may contain increased levels of IGF-1, a hormone that helps accelerate the growth of the transgenic fish and is linked to breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer.”

The groups warn that the potential health risks of GE salmon are no different from a number of food additives the FDA has banned in the past, including those that are cancer causing.<<<Read the Rest>>>

One of the complaints residents of the Northern Rockies region have had since the introduction of Canadian grey wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area and Central Idaho is that the rules are always changing, or as has been described far too often, someone keeps moving the goal posts.

Granted, the wording found in miles of sometimes seemingly senseless bureaucratic drivel, says that deference be given the Secretary in making decisions and changes and those changes should be based on “best available science”. Unfortunately “best available science” has also become a political football.

It appears that now, with some inroads being reached by those demanding stricter controls over grey wolves, wolf advocates are attempting to move the goal posts yet again. The impression is given that this is another attempt at public persuasive propaganda, where “best available science” becomes a session of human interaction and sensitivity training. One Ph.D. wants to survey people about how wolves should be managed and find out how the feel about it; the best available science of feeling?

Through email exchanges, I’ve discovered that Jeremy Bruskotter, a PhD at Ohio State University, began seeking participants for his survey. The copy of the inquiry letter is printed here:

Dear study participant,

We are contacting you because you expressed an interest in wolf management policy and a desire to participate in future research related to wolves. As a participant in our previous study, we’re interested to learn if and how your views on wolf conservation and management have changed since gray wolves were removed from Endangered Species Act protections in the northern Rocky Mountains and Great Lakes states last year.

Please note: We have greatly reduced the length of the prior survey. This survey should only take about 5 minutes of your time to complete. Also be aware that your participation in this study is voluntary. Should you choose to participate, you may leave the study at any time. If you decide to stop, there will be no penalty to you. All information gained in this study will be kept completely confidential and at no time will this information be connected with your name.

If you agree to participate, please click the link below to proceed to the survey.

CLICK THE LINK TO PROCEED TO THE SURVEY:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FJHJ1r_2bAH_2bh4MTcTEwOXpw_3d_3d

Thank you for your time and participation!

Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD

As one might suspect, some people began questioning all aspects of such a survey. Robert T. Fanning, a gubernatorial candidate for Governor of Montana, responded to Dr. Bruskotter with a bruising and factual email, in which Fanning takes Bruskotter to task of his lack of knowledge of historic fact concerning the entire grey wolf introduction. Fanning wrote:

Jeremy,

In 2000, I, we, {FOTNYEH} paid a total of $17,000 for three consulting Ph.D’s, one of which was Dr Robert Taylor, Ph.D ,who, among other duties, reached out at my direction and appealed in writing to Mike Phillips of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, and the federal biologist in charge of the YNP introduction to bring all the “stakeholders” represented by Ph.Ds from both sides to the table and participate in the “adaptive management” process so a wildlife cataclysm could be avoided and the economic , customs, culture and traditions mandated by NEPA of those States impacted by forced wolf “reintroduction ” could be represented transparently and equally.

Phillips replied in writing on TESF letterhead and essentially told Dr Taylor to “stick it where the sun don’t shine”.

As the next governor of Montana I will introduce that letter as evidence in litigation seeking restitution and restoration for the harm done by Turner, Phillips et. al. and their bad faith dealing..

Now 12 years later you want to take a vote on “management”? The “deal” was 78-100 wolves in Yellowstone National Park over a 10 to 20 year period; now you have “concerns” about “statutory obligations” with over 4,000 or 5,000 wolves reproducing at a 30% rate.?
You’re joking , right Jeremy?
Who is paying for this “study” that is 12 years late ?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bad+Faith

I wrote this and other Montana and Idaho legislation http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/HJ0029.htm

Mr. Fanning makes reference to the “deal” in his email response. Just over one year ago, I wrote a two-part series about “The Deal”. This should help readers to better understand exactly what Mr. Fanning is referencing when he questions Dr. Bruskotter’s request in surveying residents.

Understand as well, that it seems that Mr. Bruskotter makes reference, according to the response from Mr. Fanning, that now with the present management policies in place for wolves, i.e. they are hunted and trapped in some states, there should be concern for abiding by “statutory obligations”. Fanning’s reference to “The Deal” is all the statutory obligations that were presented to the people prior to wolf introduction and those wishing wolves in every dooryard, didn’t seem to have much concern about abiding by these so-called statutory obligations.

By hand selecting only those obligations that fits one’s agenda, has contributed significantly to the constant moving of goalposts making it impossible to properly manage and control the species. With years of historic statutory obligations tossed aside to achieve personal agendas, now that things are seemingly not going the way of wolf proliferation, those who disregarded the rules, like a spoiled child, once again are demanding rule changes.

Tom Remington

MISSOULA, Mont. – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the constitutionality of Congress’ removal of wolves from the federal endangered species list.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation applauded the decision.

Attorneys representing RMEF and other conservation groups had presented oral arguments supporting the Congressional action, wolf delisting and science-based, state-regulated management and control of wolf populations.

“This is a huge win for real wildlife management in the U.S.,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We’re thrilled with the favorable ruling because it upholds the law as well as science and common sense. This decision helps clear the way for continued work by true conservationists to balance wolf populations with other wildlife and human needs.”

Allen suspects the plaintiffs will appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He said, “I’m hopeful that a Congressional act, multiple courtroom defeats and an American public that is clearly tired of this legal wrangling will encourage our opponents to give up and cede responsible wolf management to conservation professionals in each state. But we’ll have to wait and see.”

RMEF continues to fight wolf lawsuits and support delisting legislation at both federal and state levels.

A guest blog by Barry Coe –

Having been born and raised in Idaho and as a lifelong sportsman of this state, I have had many issues with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) over the years. I have witnessed their actions on several issues that have directly lead to diminished fish and wildlife, and diminished sporting opportunities. In attempting to be involved and to protect our culture and interests, I have had one very consistent attitude and response from the agency that has become very proficient at taking whatever position they seem to think will best further their own agenda. That attitude is pure and raw contempt. And no other issue has exposed and proven this contempt more than the Canadian wolf introduction has.

IDFG has attempted to take the ‘we hold no blame’ position concerning wolves in this state. I feel it has been well proven that they, in fact, hold a large percentage of blame. A prior director actually wrote support letters to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and drafted an illegal permit that allowed the Canadian wolves to be dumped into this state in a blaring contempt for Idaho state code. It was so contemptuous that the Idaho state legislature actually reacted to the action, although they failed to implement accountability. Yet those were the days before the Internet and the ability to transfer information quickly and thoroughly throughout the population. Those were the days of running under the radar and outright collusion between state and federal agencies. There is little doubt in my mind, and I suspect anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of this issue would agree, that outright collusion between IDFG and the USFWS did, and continue, to take place. Wolves, grizzly bears, soon to be wolverines and all other claimed endangered species are a vast source of federal dollars and we all know, IDFG loves nothing like they love the federal dollar.

In a recent article, Jim (salt shaker) Hayden (IDFG Panhandle Regional Wildlife Manager) made yet another revealing comment. In this interview “Salt Shaker” Hayden seemed surprised that about 50% of the wolves harvested in this current wolf season have come from areas that IDFG didn’t even know contained wolves. Now, on the surface this comment may seem unimportant, yet when one considers the past 16 years, it’s importance is almost undefinable.

I have to ask this question of Mr. Hayden. Just exactly how can you manage a declining elk population when you obviously have no concept of the level of predation impacting those elk?

For years IDFG took the politically correct avenue of clinging onto the obviously and intentionally low official numbers of wolves. As hunters and outdoorsmen screamed from the rafters that those numbers were so far off it was incredible, IDFG turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. After all, the federal bucks were rolling in and the hunters were still buying licenses and tags. All was well and good at IDFG. Biologists were being hired (most directly out of the wolf introduction program) and the rumblings were contained to a small population of people who never knew how to get the truth out, especially in the face of IDFG and green eco-groups. The old tactic of ignoring and marginalizing was rolling along just fine.

It was only in the last year or two that IDFG was forced to admit that, ‘well, golly, okay, so our wolf population is around 1000 wolves’. Again the sportsmen and sportswomen of Idaho claimed that number was also an intentional down playing of the actual number of wolves in Idaho. As we witnessed the great elk herds disappear from first hand observation, IDFG still clung to the deceit that all was fine. They twisted a few numbers here, changed a few “objectives” there, rewrote a few algorithms, adjusted some seasons and continued to play both sides of the fence. After all, this has always been the status quo for this department. The level of contempt IDFG obviously has for anyone outside of the department or the federal system is amazingly apparent.

Wolf math just is not that hard. They breed like rabbits, yet have no predators. The lie just became too hard to cover up anymore and so, the science changed – I use science here with my tongue stuffed soundly into my cheek. For a decade we had manipulated science stuffed down our throats that exonerated their revenue generating wolves from any cause of any problem we were experiencing anywhere in the state they inhabited. When it became obvious that the truth was coming out, and that delisting was imminent, in spite of the department’s best efforts to keep them listed, and even drafting and submitting an illegal wolf management plan, they decided to flip over. In typical IDFG fashion, the wolves were now the cause of it all! Boy, aren’t we happy that they finally have seen the light! After all we have been telling them this for 10 years.

But, they now face a wiser and more connected sportspeople. We’re not buying it and they know it. We are now very informed and politically connected; we have communication outlets and media connections. But again, in true IDFG fashion, they have decided to try another avenue to generate their revenue. They want nothing worse than to have the hunters of this state out of the equation. We no longer forget past actions or play in the manner they want us to, paying more for less. They now turn to the tactic of pandering and collusion.

In what seems on the surface to be a politically correct action of seeking information concerning wildlife management in the state of Idaho, they have committed a few obvious mistakes that exposed their true intention. Their highly publicized ‘Summit’ was rolled out as that meeting. Conducted DURING hunting season, and with invitations extended to several anti-hunting, eco-green groups, and a group of actual past and present IDFG employees, IDFG now wants input on wildlife management. And, they want that input from everyone that doesn’t pay for it or expect the department to do anything other than perpetuate predators and sustain their job at all costs.

Rumor has it that this little summit has caused a rift in the ranks. It seems to have been generated right from the new director Virgil Moore; or at least that is where all the fingers are pointing. It seems that this long-time employee of IDFG, and new director, is attempting to return to the status quo of ignore and move forward. Instead of moving in the direction of attempting to get out from under the wolf issue, he now seems to want to change gears and get back in bed with the green, wildlands agenda, and he wants their money. Public input on management? How quaint! If only it didn’t reek of corruption, contempt and collusion. If, in fact, this is the brain child of Mr. Moore, he just flatly needs to go; it is far past time to get a director that is not a long time member of the IDFG’s good old boys club. We have flatly had enough! I suspect if our legislature is not willing to overhaul this department, the time has come to turn to the citizen and the ballot box. We have one very powerful tool at our disposal; initiatives, which are binding if passed and can be used to circumvent a lack of appropriate action by those in government. They do have the ability to change this department in ways that will both form the department in a manner the citizens of Idaho want and to also bring accountability to this long-time rogue department. The good old boys club must be dismantled.

Actual wolf numbers? Let’s return to Jim “Salt Shaker” Hayden for a few moments. I have heard sportsmen and women, who spend an immense amount of time in the outdoors, claim the wolf numbers in Idaho are at least double what IDFG claims. It now seems “Salt Shaker” Hayden has validated those claims. And in that claim, his statement speaks volumes. It is very sad that a department that is charged with the management of Idaho’s wildlife have failed so miserably, and stayed the course of ignoring sportspeople to the extent they have. There are but a few explanations for this miserable failure: Corruption, Collusion or outright incompetence. I will leave it to you to decide which it is or how much longer you are going to stand for it.

Barry Coe
Save Western Wildlife

Guest post by Jim Beers

NEWS ITEM:

“Non-native northern pike are high-impact predators of many other fish,” said John Whalen of The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. “We’re increasingly concerned about future impacts to native trout and other species, including salmon and steelhead.”

QUESTION:

What is the difference between Northern Pike from Canada (that got them from Idaho and Montana) eradicating “native trout and other species, including salmon and steelhead” fishing; and wolves transported by government from Canada eradicating elk, moose, and big game hunting as well as diminishing ranching profits, human safety, rural “Tranquility” (a Constitutional term), and the lives of untold numbers of domestic animals from cattle and sheep to dogs of all types?

ANSWER:

To answer that one (the wolf) is “Native” while the other is not or that it (the pike) is “Invasive” is meaningless. Pheasants and chukars are invasive or non-natives that were purposely introduced and are highly-sought and contributing members of the Washington economy, environment and ecosystem. Would Washington residents or the government they employ eradicate pheasants and chukars because they are non-native or invasive? I would think not.

To answer that ones’ (the wolf) destruction must be tolerated simply because government declares “it was here first” means that other dangerous and destructive animals that “were here first” like grizzly bears such as Ursus horribilis bairdi (Merriam) will likewise be imposed on rural Washington residents. Do any Washington residents or Washington state employees really intend to restore grizzly bears into a settled landscape such as Washington? I certainly hope not.

To answer that one (the pike) will diminish or eradicate “native trout and other species” is somewhat disingenuous. Approximately half of Washington’s game fish (Eastern Brook Trout, Tiger Muskie, channel catfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, brown trout, tiger trout, and Atlantic salmon) are not “native” species. Further how do you distinguish the loss of such fisheries to northern pike as intolerable when the loss of elk hunting, deer hunting, hunting in general (due to human and dog safety concerns), loss of ranch revenue, and the loss of rural domestic “Tranquility” to wolves is to be endured by rural Washington residents by government fiat? Is the trout fisherman or the bass fisherman’s interest in fishing paramount to and infinitely of more importance to the state than the interest of safety for rural children, elk hunting, deer hunting, ranching, recreation, or rural dog ownership?

On the one hand we are to be alerted to a newly arrived sport (in the majority of states) fish as an Armageddon that (undoubtedly) the state fish and wildlife agency will either A) need more money and people to combat or B) should be exempted from inexorable cuts down the road as Washington is forced to tighten its belt. On the other hand the state fish and wildlife agency abandons the rural residents of Washington to ally itself with national environmental/animal rights radical agendas, federal bureaucrats, and the unaffected urban voting blocs of Seattle by introducing (by not controlling), protecting, and spreading wolves despised by and objected to, to no avail, by those rural Washington residents that are to live with them. Thus are Washington residents to fear the pike ( a “voracious species” advancing “toward the Columbia River”) while welcoming (at least avoiding at all costs due to threatened Draconian government reprisals) wolves that are equally “voracious” but are described as necessary for the Washington countryside by state bureaucrats. Like rubes at a Carnival, we are asked to keep our eye on the wrong shell and to quietly surrender our money when we lose. The only difference here is Washington state residents pay this agency to fleece them and like the old definition of insanity, expect a different outcome than before each time.

Northern pike in the Pend Oreille River are, short of a massive and unlikely poisoning of the River in both nations, on their way to the Columbia. Increasingly scarce fishery dollars should not be wasted on a show-program that at best delays the inevitable. How ironic that the state agency wants to mount a massive pike intervention while simultaneously treating far more destructive wolves like forest fires of late, i.e. “whatever they do and whenever they do it, ‘it’ is natural and therefore above reproach by anyone, no matter the costs”.

Wolf numbers and distribution in Washington should be a decision made by and for rural (County) residents of Washington. State government should be the protector of rural families, rural communities and rural economies: not their incremental destroyers. The State government should represent those that will live with and be directly affected by the presence of wolves and not:
1. Federal agencies,
2. Questionable federal legislation like the Endangered Species Act,
3. Urban and International values imposed politically, and
4. Radical environmental and animal rights agendas hostile to rural America.

This is the answer that few people want to hear.

Jim Beers
14 December 2011
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net

*Editor’s Note* The link to this report was sent to me by Susan Wolf of the North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA)

According to Physorg.com, new DNA evidence establishes what those involved in the study believe to be evidence that coyotes migrated east.

In a new study, published Oct. 17 in the Journal of Mammalogy, researchers from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute’s Center for Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics used DNA from coyote scat (feces) to trace the route that led some of the animals to colonize in Northern Virginia. The researchers also confirmed that, along the way, the coyotes interbred with the native Great Lakes wolves.

The study claims coyotes migrated along two main corridors, one in the northern United States and one in the south. Along the northern route, coyotes encountered Great Lakes and Canadian wolves and inbreeding took place. It is believed these inbred coyotes continued to push toward the south along the Appalachian Mountains.

While the DNA testing may have proven that coyotes migrated east, nothing in this report (I don’t know if it’s included in the full study) gives any indication or conclusions as to why the coyote migrated. Some are describing this migration as “natural”, but is it? Probably that debate will never be settled. Natural or not, it is equally as important to expand this study to determine why the migration.

Was the migration an exodus or better described as an expansion of the species due to overcrowding and/or reduction of prey, disease, encounters with growing populations of wolves, etc. etc.?

We cannot fully understand these creatures’ habits until we are willing to examine the entirety of their actions and the circumstances that exist that cause changes in their habits. And be willing to accept that evidence.

Tom Remington

It will be three years in March that newly elected President Barack Obama claimed to America he would, “restore the scientific process to its rightful place at the heart of the Endangered Species Act”. He went on to blame previous administrations for using political coercion and manipulation to achieve specific goals.

It was a mere 8 months after this announcement by the President that we began to get a better idea of exactly what the President meant about “science”. While it may sound expedient to “return science to it’s rightful place”, nobody ever defines science, as shameful as it is that this becomes necessary. Of course there’s science and scientific study in the purest sense of the word, aimed at only finding truthful answers. However, that doesn’t exist anymore……does it? Now we use “science” to promote political agendas. In the end we all lose, of course.

I knew in March of 2009 exactly what President Obama meant by his rhetorical proclamation to restore science. When will any of us ever learn to stop listening to this blathering bovine excrement by politicians geared to appease the masses and lull them to sleep so they can continue their deliberate corrupting of this nation? Never I’m afraid.

However, nearly three years into this administration and it’s business as usual. Obama, like all previous administrations, uses his own pseudo science, contrived by his hand-selected radical zealots to achieve plans and programs that seldom are able to stand on their own merits. This mendacious manipulation of data and information results in some of the biggest frauds against the American people, and yet, most are numb to any of it.

Today, Fox News reports that some republican lawmakers have sent a letter to John Holdren, director of Obama’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, claiming that there have been repeat offenses of “scientific misconduct”. This falls on its face in so many ways.

Why now? In case you don’t know it’s campaign season. Nothing you hear or read is what it appears. Of course there has been “scientific misconduct”. When has there not? The only time some people think otherwise is when any scientific “findings” match their own narratives.

The republican congressmen shared their “concerns” in the letter they sent this way:

“Specifically, we are concerned with data quality, integrity of methodologies and collection of information, agencies misrepresenting publicly the weight of scientific ‘facts,’ indefensible representations of scientific conclusions before our federal court system, and our fundamental notions of ‘sound’ science,”

Sounds great doesn’t it. I mean who can argue with that? But when we see many of these scientific conclusions, regardless of which administration concocted them, end up in our courts, none of this talk of “scientific misconduct” amounts to a hill of beans.

Leaving the interpretation of scientific evidence up to a judge is ridiculous but that’s what we’ve created. Some judges go so far as to make their own scientific conclusions and thus rule accordingly. With judges being political appointments, what are we to expect? Doing so only gives presidents, like Barack Obama, the freedom to claim HE will put HIS science back in it’s rightful place. Science then gets preempted by political ideology.

Putting much credence in any hopeful speculation that a handful of politicians are actually going to achieve any sort of reformation of the scientific process is a wasted effort. When public money began to be used to fund “scientific research”, corruption escalated to a point that now politics and private agendas are so heavily entrenched into such a great part of our scientific community, it leaves many of us wondering if anything we hear anymore is believable.

Certainly not from a bunch of politicians in campaign mode.

Tom Remington

Has the air slowly leaked out of the save-Maine’s-deer balloon? Coming off the results of a historic campaign in Maine, with the appointment of a new commissioner for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), many outdoor sportsmen got wound up about Maine’s Game Plan for Deer. Sportsmen were promised a few things and now it is time to begin reviewing those promises and see what has transpired.

The fifth of Five Elements of Maine’s Game Plan for Deer looks like this:

Public understanding of the Department’s deer management plan and public support for the plan is essential for it to be successful.
Strategies:
• the Department will enhance its public outreach on two fronts:
• better informing the public about the many aspects of deer management and updating the public on progress in deer rebuilding efforts, and
• better providing information on ways concerned individuals and groups can improve deer habitat
• MDIF&W will increase public understanding and support for it efforts to increase the deer population

How is MDIFW doing? Are you satisfied? If you’re not, don’t remain silent. We were promised better. Now ask yourself if you are getting it.

There is one thing I learned very early on in life when it came to public service as well as my own adventures in business – keep the people informed. This is the best money spent. There’s several things wrong with our government and a lack of communication is one of them. The other is communicating the wrong information. If those two things could be overcome at MDIFW, many of the other problems with public relations would go away. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen. After all, we are talking about a government agency here, one that is no different than any other and fails are communicating effectively because they want to keep information from us.

Sorry if I’m stepping on someone’s toes here but that is the reality and until someone can show me differently, I certainly will not change my approach.

To give credit where credit is due, at least MDIFW and all those involved in creating the Plan, if there were others, recognized that it was important enough to include as one of their five elements of things necessary to accomplish in order for the plan to work. If that is true and they fully believed that, then I ask sportsmen again to ask themselves if they are satisfied with the information and the amount of it that MDIFW is giving us about our deer plan to restore the Maine herd.

I’m not and here are the reasons why. In early February, MDIFW began sending out Deer Progress Reports. What was planned to be a weekly report began getting scattered until the first part of April when it was announced that aerial surveys of deer ceased because deer were no longer restricted to deer yards.

Three months passed by and MDIFW sent out a “Summary” of the past progress reports which I’m not sure I would call it a summary of deer progress but more of an update of plans with no specific data to satisfy the masses of sportsmen.

Perhaps I am different than most sportsmen but nothing I received all winter and into the summer told me much of anything as it pertained to the condition and the status the deer herd. While each progress report included a report of any predation issues, mostly what we were subjected to were copy and paste reports like this:

Staff monitored winter conditions [temperature, snow depths, deer sinking depths, and snow profile characteristics] at 26 individual monitoring stations throughout the state to estimate the impact of winter conditions on deer mortality.

How difficult would it have been to provide that information? If staff monitor winter conditions do they record it? I’m assuming they record it because I was told by Lee Kantar, head deer biologist at MDIFW, that this information is used to come up with a Winter Severity Index. This index is used as part of their calculations to formulate an educated guess as to how many deer died from the bad winter and how many survived.

My point is, if it’s recorded, why can’t it be at least placed on the MDIFW web site where sportsmen can go look at it? I don’t see this as being a difficult thing to do for this and/or all other data collected. Is there something to hide or are we just being “protected” by the enlightened here?

Sportsmen can view this in any fashion they so desire. I’m not so naive that I don’t understand that certain things cost certain money. I am however, savvy enough to know that certain monies, invested the right way can pay big dividends. If MDIFW wants our help as they claim, that begins by helping us.

However, there is more to replenishing Maine’s deer herd than monitoring winter weather stations, doing winter aerial surveys and trying to figure out if coyotes are killing many deer in the deer yards during winter. Maine has four seasons. Do we ignore them?

There are two major issues that I would like to see reported in deer progress after the winter surveys are improved upon. At some point in time, the biologists at MDIFW arrive at a fawn recruitment rate or percentage. This is done by compiling data from several areas, including spring time observations in the field. It’s not complicated this part of it. You look in a field with deer and you count how many does and how many fawns and do some math.

We can talk about predation mortality until the caribou come back but the survival of the Maine deer herd is dependent on the number of fawns that survive to replace the adult deer that die off from various things. Simple math can show that if more adult deer die off than new deer can replace them, eventually you will achieve ZERO.

Also, it is not being passed on to the public that predators’ have great impact on new-born fawns in the spring. Black bears are up and about and hungry. They know, as do the coyotes, bobcats, lynx, etc., where the deer traditionally go to fawn. They kill new born deer. These same predators understand migration routes for when pregnant does leave the deer yards and head back to their stomping grounds. They lie in wait.

Do we ignore this and hope it goes away? Perhaps monitoring this event is more important than reporting on “reports” of depredation problems during winter. Let’s demand that we have an accounting. Let’s see if there is anything we can do as sportsmen to limit or reduce fawn mortality in the spring. Let’s demand an accounting from MDIFW of recruitment and fawn mortality.

Here are questions for readers: Do you know what the current estimated deer population is in Maine? Do you know what the total deer mortality rate is per year? Do you know what the adult male, adult female and yearling mortality rates are each year? Do you know what the fawn recruitment for Maine is? Do you know at what level it needs to be just to sustain a population? Do you know what the mortality rate is for vehicle deaths? Do you know what data MDIFW biologists collect at tagging stations? Do they test for any diseases and if so what? Do they test for age of deer? Do you know what the age structure is for Maine’s deer? Do you know why age structure is vitally important? Why can’t we have all this information made easily available to us?

The second thing is harvest data. I see few legitimate reasons why sportsmen can’t have first count data on deer and bear harvests without waiting 4 – 6 months for that information. Yes, for some of us it’s nice to have the full report and examine harvest data by town, etc. but the overwhelming majority of hunters would like to see preliminary numbers within days of the end of hunting season. Let’s demand it.

I’m sure there are tons more issues sportsmen would like to see addressed. Demand it. Make noise. Don’t let officials off the hook. They told us they were going to do a better job of communicating information to us. I’m not satisfied. If you’re not, demand more. It’s your investment.

Tom Remington

I decided to share this video here because it is extremely relevant to, not only our everyday lives, but the the oft discussed topic of science on this website. After all, science is the embodiment of life and life cannot be fully realized without freedom. Thus, can it not be also said that science cannot be realized with the freedom to explore it?

I have discussed often the unfortunate results and the future dangers we face when we are subjected to statements like those of Al Gore who claim: the science is settled. As is spoken of in this movie, nothing is ever settled or accepted unless it is answered properly. The freedom to explore science can direct us toward answering more questions.

To some, this may appear to be a movie about intelligent design vs. evolution, and you can take that away from this movie if you so chose. I see it as more a revelation, supported by a preponderance of evidence, that the freedom to explore science to see where it will lead us, is being controlled by those not wishing to go there for myriad and disturbing reasons. There are, unfortunately, as you will see in this movie, consequences for the most simplest of actions to question the scientific industry that is working toward suppression.

I encourage all to watch this.