By Mac Moad

The first week of October was finally here.  The first three days were spent in my favorite stand watching 3 raccoons in which I had named Larry, Curly, and Moe.  The mother raccoon was slightly bigger than the two younger ones, and seemed curious to every movement surrounding them.  The days here in eastern Oklahoma in October were still in the 80’s with mosquitoes buzzing everywhere.  I was wondering if it were still to hot to hunt and questioned myself again over and over.  Each day so far, I had hunted morning and evening with only a few does showing up.

Our family is one of three families (all related) that live on the mountain with about 360 acres of land owned by our families.  Each year we hunt, we always establish the rules.  {8 Point or better for the husbands} {Wives and kids, buck or doe} Now last year I hunted all year and didn’t harvest one deer, but I had seen enough antlers to keep me excited.  Every time Bill and Grover, my brother in-laws, sure let me

know how I got spanked on last years hunt.  Both are avid rifle hunters and tagged out the year I brought home nothing.  I was thinking about this already early in this season while elevated about 18 feet up in my climber.  I wondered, as every other hunter does, will this be my year.  As I looked down from my stand at the raccoons again on the 4^th morning of October 2007, I was once again thinking of how pretty they were and how every day I am in the woods, I look for the highlight of the day.  Whether this was the highlight of the day again, or was an owl going to sit on the limb next to me, a squirrel sitting on my boot, quail leaving a fast trail for a coyote, bobcats on the prowl, turkeys rustling, what was going to be the highlight?

Then, I saw movement directly in front of me.  I was a deer for sure, and no does were present yet.  I had placed my stand in what my wife calls the quiet spot.  High cedars with no brush, not to thick, but perfect for a good bow shot.  A well used doe trail to my right, and another trail coming in from the left, thicker trees to my front.  I could see about 40 yards around me with a creek bed behind me on a down hill gentle slope. The deer in front of me wasn’t spooked or aware of my presence as it slowly made its way directly toward me.  Sun to my back and the breeze in my face, finally, I could see him completely.  “Very nice buck” I was thinking.  As he moved closer and closer, I could count 4 on one side and 4 on the other.  Not sure if I wanted to take the shot just yet, I moved into position just in case.  Standing now and ready to draw, I used the bow as if I was hiding behind its small limbs.  The buck was much bigger than I originally thought the closer he moved to my stand.  20 yards and still coming, 10 yards and still coming.  He stopped, head concealed by a large cedar tree.  I came to full draw and picked my shooting lane.  As if knowing I was now ready to shoot, the 8 point stepped from behind the cedar and moved closer, directly into my shooting lane.  7 yards, I picked my hairs on the buck, just behind the shoulder and quartering down.  I could sense the raccoons to my right and felt a sense of calm, took a large breath, let it out half way, became steady as a rock and released.

{‘Wham”}  I dropped him in his tracks.  I intended to penetrate spine, heart, and lung if possible for a deadly and swift kill.  My broadhead did exactly that.  I stood for a moment and watched the buck lie still and quiet.  Larry, Curly, and Moe were nowhere to be seen.  I called my wife using my cell phone and quietly whispered I had a good buck down, her response to me was “why are we whispering”.  Laughing a little I said, I am in the quiet spot.

After checking the buck in and heading to the processors, I continued to hunt the evening in another stand.  Each day I hunted, I elected to use my climber instead of pre-placed stands used each year.  October the 7^th, 3 days after my first buck of the year, my 14 year old son was ready for action.  This would be his first year bow hunting, and he practiced every day for the last two months.  He was actually quite good shooting the pillow target and 3D’s, in which I was very proud.  Sunday after church, he would be in the woods with me for the evening hunt.  Everything seemed to go wrong.  I found out he was afraid of heights the hard way, but patiently, I assisted him into a lock-on stand with steps, explained the safety belt, strapped him in and climbed down.  I hooked his bow on the bow string and up and away the bow went.  While the bow was being pulled up by my son, I was watching all around me, trying to quiet down the woods, when {Wham}!!!!  My right hand was numb.  I looked at my hand and there was a deep cut to the bone on the top.  My son had almost had the bow in his stand when the bow string slipped.  The bow caught me square across my hand.  Seriously nervous and seeing the blood, my son asked if I was alright and maybe we should just go home and get the hand took care of.  He said he was so sorry and it just slipped, and…………  I assured my son everything was fine, helped him get the bow up the stand, and assured him he was ready to hunt.  “Don’t worry about me son, you just keep your eyes out for the big one.  I will be about 100 yards straight across the creek.”  I pointed with my other hand where I would be, wished him good luck, then started walking away from his stand. After crossing the creek and out of sight from Chase, I stopped and looked at the top of my right hand.  I was hurt pretty good, and I still couldn’t make a fist yet.

Not wanting to leave the woods with my son still in a stand, I elected to set up on a trail I knew of and wait it out.  I pulled off the climber from my shoulder and worried a little about if I could even use the stand to climb or not.  After setting up the stand at the bottom of the tree I picked out, we were going to find out if I could climb with one hand.  It actually wasn’t that bad.  Up the tree I went, got situated, smiled a little at how stupid I was to stand directly under my sons stand when he was raising his bow then shrugged it off as “my stupidity, my fault.” Now situated and seated in my stand, I wondered if I could even draw my bow back with the bum hand.  So, I stood up quietly, drew the bow and wow, man did that hurt.  I sat back down and thought once again, I hope a big buck goes by my son instead of me this evening.  Not real sure I could even draw again.

45 minutes later, about 6:05pm, I caught movement from over my right shoulder.  Yep, you guessed it.  It was a buck, but a very small buck.  Knowing that early in this season the bucks were still traveling together, I stood, turned and prepared.  Sure enough, 5 yards behind the 4 point, was a small basket 8 point.  Immediately I decided not to shoot this small 8.  To my surprise, directly on his heals was a really nice 8 point.  Now I was getting excited.  By the way, the first buck in front had walked directly under my stand and was now in front of my stand.  I drew slowly, aimed center mass of the shooting lane in a gap in the brush.  The small 8 point buck walked through the gap, and then “There he was”,  A fine 8 point standing in the gap.  Once again, I picked my area of hair behind the shoulder, quartered down, controlled the breathing, paused, and slowly squeezed the trigger release.

{Wham} I dropped him in his tracks.  I intended to penetrate spine, heart, and lung if possible again and sure enough, the broadhead did the work.  Can you believe this, 6 yards, another nice buck on the ground, just laying there.  I stood in amazement, I was shocked.  This was a really nice buck, pretty wide and may score as well.  The odd thing about this was, “dropped in his tracks.”  The very thing every hunter hopes for is to find the deer, or even better a swift and clean kill.  Well, not only did I find the deer three or four days ago, I found this one too.  I was like a dream.  Two 8 point bucks, both bow kills, both in the same week, both dropped in their tracks. I realized after a brief moment of silence, that my hand did not hurt anymore, and to make things even better, my son was on this hunt with me only 100 yards away. The two bucks that were in front of this one, there would be a good chance Chase saw them or even may get a shot.  But what will always cross my mind is how big was the buck that was still coming in from behind the buck I harvested.  I saw him jump when I released.  I climbed down and walked to Chases stand, walked cautiously up to the side of him and told him we had a good buck down.  Excited, he said he saw two bucks running and asked how big my buck was.  I told him, “well, I don’t know really, maybe you should help me track him”.  Chase was so excited when he walked up to my tree, buck in plain site.  “Man, I’m gonna get me a buck like that” I went to retrieve the 4-wheeler, we loaded the deer and headed to the house.  I was kind of in a hurry as the darkness was starting to set in, and I still needed to check this buck in too.  Arriving at our home on the mountain, my father stepped out on the deck and observed our approach.  My father had just come in from out of town that day to visit us for a week, so that was kind of cool him seeing me bring in another deer.  He was a big deer hunter with hunting skills that I always admired.

As far as the wife goes, she was so excited.  Not so much that I had gotten a nice buck, but that I had gotten two nice bucks with a bow in the first week of hunting season.  She rubbed it in real good to her two brothers whom still hadn’t harvested anything.  The next morning, as I watched the brother in laws roll out to the woods to deer hunt, I told them the same thing I always told them.  “Good luck and I hope you get a big one” Every bit of this is true, and I honestly believe this will be hard for me to beat next year.  After all, now my season just went from deer season, to “dear” season.  Being tagged out in the first week of bow season is a sure sign that honey-do’s will be a major part of the rest of my season.

Whether hunting public or privateland, the fundamentals of calling elk remain the same.

By Michael Waddell

We heard the bull bugle at first light and snuck into his core area. When I hit a lick on my bugle, the bull simply came unglued and stormed our position like a tank, crashing through brush and small lodgepole pines like they were atchsticks. Before we could react he was in our lap and we were pinned down, myself hiding behind a camera, too afraid to even touch the tripod for fear of my shaking hands would run the footage. All I could see of my partner edged against a stunted pine was the tip of his undrawn arrow shaking uncontrollably on the rest. Before a shot presented itself, the bull smelled a  rat and disappeared as quickly as he arrived.

While this experience didn’t result in a dead elk, it did hopelessly addict me to calling them. It seems that in all walks of life, be it the animal kingdom or humans, communication is a key ingredient for all social interaction. However not all living things communicate to the same degree. If you ask my wife, I am sure she will tell you I lack in the communication department, in fact I am sure she believes I don’t listen to her at all, but when it comes to communicating with animals I can barely shut up. Of all the animals I love to communicate with elk rate right at the top. By nature elk are very vocal. The uninitiated often simply think of bulls bugling, but cows, calves and bulls make all sorts of noises year around. If you encounter a larger herd of elk while you might not hear a thing from a distance, if you get close you will hear lots of subtle vocalization. Most of the time these are sounds of contentment, but depending on what’s happening the vocalization reflects it. Elk can convey contentment, danger, curiosity, or a cow in heat. Bulls for instance only bugle primarily in the rut, but they also communicate to establish a pecking order. After spending a considerable amount of time chasing the mighty wapiti, I’m convinced every elk in the herd knows each other by sound alone. This happens with the cows as well as the bulls and based on my evaluation somewhere in this mix is the deadly secret to calling elk archery-close.

Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

It seems that the more vocal a herd the better the odds are for success at calling them. Some cows call subtle, while others are loud-mouth ladies actively looking for a date. By listening it gives you a better opportunity to imitate the particular tones and intensity of the herd. By calling we are automatically intruding into the social club without an invitation. The closer we can sound to a known elk, and match that intensity the better the odds are of filling a tag. Even though we may sound like an outsider to the herd, luckily for us, love crazed bulls are not looking to be intimate with just one or two cows they are looking for all the love of every cow in the world, so taking advantage of their sexual frustrations and promiscuity is what we aim to do. It doesn’t take a world champion elk caller to trick bulls within range. By simply paying attention to the herd and understanding simple elk rhythm, tone and more important volume when calling, a hunter can depend on an elk call to be a valuable asset to dulling broadheads.

Public Versus Private Land

Since I started hunting elk 16 years ago, on private as well as public ground, I have realize that comparing these two different types of ground are like comparing night and day and it is all about the amount of pressure each receives. Generally speaking private ground bulls are way easier to call than public ground animals, but this is not always the case. Some private land does get a lot of pressure, which can make for some pretty tough calling duels with elk that can serve you up a humble pie every time you bust out a call. While conversely some public land either through sheer remoteness or hard-to-get tags is like calling the best private land in the nation. Hunting un-touched land and cow calling to bulls that have never heard a Hoochie Mamma would obviously be nice and it wouldn’t take long working over these uneducated elk to start feeling like an elk calling pro only to be deflated the first time we went to the national forest and mixed it up with bulls so well-known by local hunters that they have knick names. However, regardless of where you hunt the basics of calling remain the same. Start with mastering the cow call and all its various inflections. Your basic reed type calls are the easiest to learn as well as get proficient with. You will find two kinds; both are bite down reed-type of calls, one being enclosed and the other having an open reed or reeds. These calls make a very realistic sound and before your wife can run you out of the house you will master the basics.  I rely heavily on the cow call and think most of the time hunters are better off sticking with it over a bugle no matter where he is hunting. But learning how to make a basic bugle is important, especially for locating bulls at a distance before getting close and working him with your cow call. In addition, sometimes it is the bugle that finally provokes a dominant bull to commit, especially during the early season when bulls are still sorting out their peckin’ order.

Earning Your Public Ground PhD

Lets face it, unless you have deep pockets much of the private ground in the West is pretty much off limits, so you have to learn to hunt public land. This is not a bad thing as public ground comprises millions upon millions of acres across the West and happens to have some of the biggest bulls found anywhere. While it can be tougher than private, once you learn how to hunt it you won’t be disappointed. Over the years, one of my favorite places to hunt is the Gila National Forest, in New Mexico, and even though this is a trophy area tags are fairly obtainable through application. In the Gila, the trophy potential is off the chart, sporting some of the biggest bulls in the country, but just because the big ones live there doesn’t mean thatyou automatically make one call and they come running to get in the back of your truck. These mature jokers have a PhD in avoiding hunters. Over the last six years I have hunted this area religiously and have had the opportunity to shoot some nice bulls all by using elk calls as an aid to close the coffin. Notice I said, “as an aid”, meaning the call was just one thing in a bag of tricks to help smoke these monarchs. My biggest bull that came out of the Gila was a 378 P&Y bull that had earned the name Professor because he always seemed to take you to school when you applied too much pressure. However, this bull was vocal and would bugle his butt off. He also seemed to be fairly easy to find, not only by his gnarly, raspy bugle that set him apart, but frequently he could be found early in the morning in a large meadow just south of a particular water hole that always attracted a large herd. The Professor was not the only bull in the area that had large headgear, but it was The Professor that seemed to call the shots. I had caught this bull in the open several times, but calling seemed to really make him uneasy when you were in close. The Professor however would bugle hard to distant cow calls and seem to be whole heartedly interested, but had a sixth sense when you moved in for the attack. Final we decided to have a caller stay behind as we worked him coming off the meadow at daybreak. By doing this we could keep him interested and bugling as we stalked in closer. The caller always was no closer than 80 yards behind me. While the caller kept him occupied, I slid within 50 yards and gave him a G5 Tekan right behind the shoulder. This hunt was really a stalk, but the call and caller had a big part to do with his demise. Once we started quartering the bull up, we found a piece of an old arrow lodged just below the backstraps, so obviously someone had him in close before and gave the Prof and education, which explained why he was so wary.

The Double Team

As this old bull showed, hunting with a partner can work extremely well. It not only puts the hunter out in front of the call, but it gives the hunter a chance to move and adjust the angle based on where the bull might be approaching. Likewise, the caller has the flexibility to move as well and apply a lot of different calling techniques. The double team plan worked again on another hunt. It had been hot and the bulls were only bugling early and late. As soon as the sun would rise the elk woods would turn in to a ghost town.
Just after daybreak on the fourth day of our hunt we heard this bull bugle. He hit it only two times, both very weak and he sounded like the littlest rag horn in the land but with no other game in town we went after him. Getting as close as possible to where we thought the bugle came from I eased up and sat down by a pine stump while my buddy moved back and to my right about 40 yards. Neither of us were very optimistic about our chances. My buddy made one or maybe two very soft cow calls on a two reed diaphragm then he started raking a tree and rolled a few rocks. We sat there for possibly 10 minutes in silence, then out of nowhere appeared a wide 340 inch 6 x 6 coming directly to us, at 25 yards the bull let out a soft chuckle, looked over his surrounding and kept walking in the direction of where the last rock had been rolled, which led him 16 steps from my pine stump. By now I was at full draw waiting for a broadside shot. When the arrow left my bow, I knew we had killed a call shy monster by keeping it low key and staying patient. Needless to say, I was never convinced by the two times he had bugled earlier that he was a shooter. This was a lesson in itself. Never judge a bugle until you can see what is making the sound.
The most exciting way to bag a bull elk is to get him in close, and the best way to do that is with a call. Confidence in your call is critical, because if you’re insecure about using your call there is a good chance you will spook elk. Have confidence in your calling ability and become just another elk in the herd where you are hunting. Find a call that works for you and not what works for some else. Think like an elk and do as elk do. Realism, rhythm, and volume control can make the difference between bringin’ them in or running them over the next ridge. And remember its not always about calling, it can be just patiently listening to the sounds around you and applying minimal calls, while practicing good woodsmenship, and stalking skills that could help you put that monster on the back of the truck.

By Michael Waddell

This is a warning to outdoor users about a potentially deadly biological event that could result from one’s curiosity to poke at and kick through scat from wolves, coyotes and foxes. Of course not everyone knowingly does this but many hunters, trappers and simply the curious, want to know what these animals have been eating.

Back in the end of November I gave you a link to a story, “Of Wolves and Worms”. That story introduced many of us to the subject of worms being found in wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.

According to a new study out in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, three-millimeter-long tapeworms known as Echinococcus granulosus, are documented for the first time in gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. And the authors didn’t just find a few tapeworms here and there… turns out that of 123 wolf intestines sampled, 62 percent of the Idaho gray wolves and 63 percent of the Montana gray wolves were positive. (Ew!) The researchers wrote: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding.” (Again… Ew!!) This leads to the interpretation that the E. granulosus parasite rate is fairly widespread and established in the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves.

There is discussion about how some think the worms ended up in the wolves in this region but the article tends to downplay any serious concerns people should have from coming in contact with these tapeworms and the eggs they leave behind.

In the comments section of the article, Will Graves, author of the book “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, left his thoughts on his own research discoveries about the dangers to humans of these parasites.

In the first paragraph in my letter to Mr. Bangs dated 3 October 1993 on the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) which was titled “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho,” I warned about the damages and problems wolves would cause to Yellowstone and other areas by carrying and spreading parasites and diseases over larger areas. Some of these parasites are damaging not only to wild and domestic animals, but can also be dangerous to humans. One of these parasites is Echinococcous Granulosus and Echinococcus M. Since 1993 I have been working to tell people what I have learned from about 50 years of research on the characteristics, habits and behavior of Russian wolves. From that research I came to the conclusion that one of the most serious consequences of bring wolves into the US would be the wolves carrying and spreading around damaging/dangerous parasites and diseases. I did my best to explain this in my book titled, “Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages” edited by Dr. Valerius Geist. Details about my book are in my web site: wolvesinrussia.com.

After several years effort, I finally recently obtained help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Parasitic Research Center in Beltsville, MD. This research center will try to conduct research on the blood taken from wolves in our western states. Oneparasite they will be researching is to determine if wolves carry and spread the parasite Neospora Caninum around. It is established that coyotes and dogs carry this damaging parasite.

I remember that about two years ago there was a report about one wolf carrying Echinococcus Granulosus in Montana.

Much more research is needed about the danger wolves bring to our environment. Some of the parasites carried by wolves are dangerous to humans.(emphasis added)

Around this same time that Will Graves posted his comments, he contacted me by email and asked if I could somehow be of assistance to him in obtaining blood samples from wolves taken during the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts. The word went out quickly and hopefullyGraves gets what he needs to help him in his research. This can become extremely valuable information for all of us.

In the meantime, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary and Dr. Charles Kay, of Utah State University, who holds degrees in wildlife ecology, environmental studies and wildlife biology, exchanged thoughts on the discovery of worms in Yellowstone wolves in emails I received.

Well, Charles? What else is new? What did we warn about, how we were censored as alarmists………………………
And yes, a colleague assured us that all that is not a problem for us, but for some native types. Nothing to worry about, really. Remember how, early on, we put out a warning – do not kick dry wolf feces or poke about in such looking for evidence of food habits. Do not handle wolf feces as it will disturb the tiny Echinococcus eggs that float up like little dust cloud to envelop you, and you are very likely to ingest some of that “dust”. This know-how, which we older Canadian types carried away from our parasitogy lessons was poo-hood by some American colleagues. Wolves are after all, harmless! Remember the question we posed: is it really such a great idea completing ecosystems when the progression is herbivores, carnivores, finally diseases and parasites?

It is not my intention nor that of Drs. Geist and Kay to attempt to instill unnecessary fear in people but to educate, as it was back in the day before wolf reintroduction. There are very important lessons and warnings that all should heed and take into consideration when in the woods or maybe even in your own back yard.

Dr. Geist emailed me the other day and asked me if I would be kind enough to post this information so that anyone and everyone will be aware of the potential for some very serious health issues.

Urgent: could you make a point of it that now, that we know that the majority of wolves are infected with Echinococcus, that all hunters control their curiosity and not poke about in wolf or coyote feces to find out what these predators ate. these feces are saturated with tiny, lightweight Echinococcus eggs that rise like dust plume from the disturbed feces and envelop the poking hunter. If the air-born eggs are ingested, the an infection is possible, and having Echinococcus cysts grow inside oneself is not a desirable condition. Trust me!

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.

There is however, another much more alarming angle. Echinococcus multilocularis is a nightmare, and much more virulent than Echinococcus granulosus of any strain. We cannot encapsulate this cyst, and it grows and buds off like a cancer infecting different parts of the body incessantly. Were some of the wolves infected with multilocularis? Coyotes and foxes carry it and it has been spreading. Do canids in Idaho, Montana, etc. have it? It’s found in Alberta. Regardless, now is the time to send out an SOS to ALL outdoor users. Hold your curiosity in check, do not poke into the feces of wolves, coyotes and foxes. If you do you will release clouds of Echinococcus eggs which will envelop you, and you may ingest the eggs, bring the eggs home and endanger your family. This is nothing new to me and I have lived with this constraint on my curiosity for over 40 years. This is just a know how that maintains your personal and your family’s safety. Also, never feed uncooked offal to your dog as it may become infected with Echinococcus and infect you and your family. Echinococcus cysts love to be in lung and liver, and if consumed by dogs you have a health hazard on your hands. And such cysts now grow in deer and elk where you live. Somebody should take a second look searching out Echinococcus multilocularis.

You and I probably have no idea in the world whether these worms exist in the woods we hunt, trap, hike, etc. but good advice given by Dr. Geist should tell us it’s not something we should mess around with. Squelch the curiosity to dig in the poop and just assume there could be hidden danger.

I want to take a moment to thank Will Graves, Dr. Val Geist and Dr. Charles Kay for caring enough about the rest of us to be willing to share their findings and experiences.

Things I am looking for, but not limited to.

•    Gear: Clothes, utility tools, ATV’s…
•    Favorite weapons: guns, bows, sticks, stones…
•    Best Duck Blind or Hide…
•    You, family or friends dressed for the hunt…
•    Where you hunt

All I need is a digital picture in any PC compatible format and a description of the picture.  You can make the description as long or short as you would like.  If there is a story behind the picture we would love to hear about it.

Send Pictures to:

Todd Krater
U.S. Hunting Today
Managing Editor
todd@ushuntingtoday.com

Note: If you want a picture posted and do not have a digital copy I would be willing to scan it for you.  Please contact me for details.

US Hunting Today reserves the right to refuse any picture for any reason as well as edit it where appropriate.

This year’s event will be held at the University of Maine at Fort Kent and as last year, Skinny Moose Media, in conjunction with U.S. Hunting Today and Maine Hunting Today, will live-stream the video and audio of the event.

Tom Remington, Vice President of Skinny Moose Media, LLC, author of the Black Bear Blog and Managing Editor of U.S. Hunting Today and Maine Hunting Today, will be on hand at the show to conduct interviews and do the filming of the event. He will have his long time friend and Chief Photographer for Skinny Moose Media, Milt Inman with him to assist and grab tons of candid shots throughout the day and evening.

Drawing of names will commence at 6 p.m. It is hoped that things will be set up and video streaming by 4 p.m. that same day. Once the drawing begins, there are no planned interruptions to the streaming.

Last year’s event was held at the Kittery Trading Post in Kittery, Maine and there were over 6,000 who logged onto to the Black Bear Blog to watch and listen to names being drawn.

Obviously if you can find your way clear to make the trip to Fort Kent and the University of Maine, it will prove to be a great time. It is the intention of Skinny Moose Media to provide a service to the hunters in Maine and beyond who can’t be there in person but would like to watch.

On the day of the Maine Moose Lottery drawing, those wishing to view the event can log onto the Black Bear Blog. Immediately on the home page will be a link to follow that will take you directly to the video player and live streaming.

If all goes as planned, the “live chat” function of the video player will be open for hunters to interact among themselves or to ask Tom questions, providing he isn’t too busy. You will not need to register to use the chat function or to view the audio.

For those interested, Skinny Moose Media still has some advertising space available on the video player page for that event. This proves to be one of the most highly visible pages during this event. If you are interested, please contact Skinny Moose Media.

This year’s broadcast is being sponsored by the Allagash Sporting Camps in Allagash, Maine.

Tom Remington

It has gotten so bad that a group, made up of representatives from Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and New York, have petitioned the Department of Interior in order to place protections under the Endangered Species Act for any interbred species of dogs, coyotes, wolves or any combination of the above, claiming these all to be unique species.

In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the Endangered Species Act, we hereby petition the U.S. Department of Interior and the Service to regulate the commerce or taking, and treat as endangered species in the States of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts, coyotes (Canis latrans), coyote/gray wolf hybrids (Canis latrans x Canis lupus), eastern wolves (Canis lycaon), eastern wolf/gray wolf hybrids (Canis lycaon x Canis lupus), coyote/eastern wolf hybrids (Canis latrans x Canis lycaon), and coyote/eastern wolf/gray wolf hybrids (Canis latrans x Canis lycaon x Canis lupus) because of their close resemblance to the federally endangered and protected gray wolf.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act and/or the U.S. Endangered Species Act, we also hereby petition the U.S. Department of Interior and the Service: (1) to establish a Northeastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment consisting of the States of New York, Vermont New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts; and, (2) to develop and implement a Northeastern Gray Wolf Recovery Plan.

Part of this groups reasoning is that with open hunting and trapping seasons on eastern coyote, because some of these coyotes my have interbred with an Eastern gray wolf, it should be protected in order to protect the gray wolf.

We seem only now willing to admit that wolves and domestic dogs have been interbreeding for centuries. Recently it was determined that what made wolves black was the result of interbreeding with dogs. We’ve even found in historic writings, like those of Teddy Roosevelt’s, that Indians and trappers/hunters used to do a lot of interbreeding with wolves and their hunting dogs to develop a dog that could stand up to wolves.

Neither the gray wolf nor the eastern coyote is threatened or in any danger of extinction. To think that we now should consider protecting mongrel dogs in the wild is absolutely ridiculous. When the USFWS gets done reviewing this petition, it should be immediately tossed in the garbage can.

Tom Remington

Reprinted by permission from the author:

Valerius Geist, 2008. Commentary. The Danger of Wolves. Wildlife Professional Vol 2, No. 4 pp. 34-35. Winter 2008 edition.

E-mail: kendulf@shaw.ca;

February 14th 2008

Below is the original manuscript. Note the end-notes!

Who and What killed Kenton Carnegie?

Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary
Calgary, Canada.

On November 1st 2007 a six-member coroner’s jury in Saskatchewan ruled that wolves killed Kenton Carnegie, a 22-year-old 3rd year honors and scholarship student in the Co-op program in Geological-Engineering at the University of Waterloo. He was killed on November 8th 2005 at Points North Landing near Wollstone Lake in northern Saskatchewan. Though he was the best-investigated human victim of wolf predation in North America in the past century , there have been other victims such as five-year-old Marc Leblond, killed Sept. 24, 1963 north of Baie-Comeau, Quebec , and more according to native people. It is they who pointed out in conversation that wolves “eat the evidence” and also disperse it, making detection and confirmation of cause of death very difficult. In addition there have been a number of attacks on people in Canada and Alaska in recent years , and more are expected as wolves become more numerous and disperse after decades of control.

Victims of wildlife tragedies in North America tend to be blamed for the event , and it was not different in Kenton’s case. It greatly upset Kenton’s family, as did the whitewash of wolves that could only mislead the judiciary and the public . They thus asked two (Correction: three!) scientists to look independently into the matter. One was Alaska biologist Mark McNay, the other was Brent Patterson of Ontario, the other was myself. At the coroners inquest only one expert witness was allowed to testify on behalf of the Carnegies and the court chose Mark McNay. His presentation was effective!

The Kenton Carnegie case is significant as it points to deficits in scholarship pertaining to wolf/human interactions, and consequently to flawed assumptions underlying wolf conservation legislation her and in Europe. As alluded to above, a sideshow to be noted in passing is an attempt to blame black bears for Kenton Carnegie’s death . However, this assertion failed to survive scrutiny by peers and by the court. Nevertheless, it was reported in important popular outlets and remains uncorrected in such, thereby still misinforming the public . There is a danger of a parallel to Farley Movat’s book “Never Cry Wolf” which was quickly exposed as erroneous by Canadian scientists, but whose informed voices were ignored by the public and the literati, which even now accepts that book on face value .

The coroner’s inquest in Saskatchewan, however, only answered the narrow question of who killed Kenton Carnegie. To this the answer is: wolves. Change the question to what killed Kenton Carnegie and the answer is: the belief that wolves are harmless and do not kill people. Yet, I must confess that I too embraced a similar view during my career and well into retirement, having been taught such even in graduate school, and reinforced by years of experience with painfully shy wilderness wolves. However, a misbehaving pack on Vancouver Island, and a review of historical matters, taught me otherwise . The myth of harmless wolves is a well-established modern dogma. It is deadly! Belief in this myth has killed at least three persons in North America alone in the last decade, two of which were bright, educated young people.

Nobody at Points North Landing noticed that the wolves involved were not merely habituating, but were targeting people as prey . Wolves do this in the very same manner as coyotes in urban parks when targeting children . Both canids explore humans very cautiously and over a protracted time period before mounting the first, exploratory attack. This two wolves had done four days prior to Kenton’s death. They attacked a bush pilot and a geophysicist outside the camp, but the two young men beat back the wolves and photographed them. While the behavior of wolves signaled at Points North Landing a disaster waiting to happen, nobody recognized it as such even after the failed wolf attack. The belief in the harmlessness of wolves was firmly entrenched.

Ironically, while coyote biologists recognized that the smaller coyote will target people as prey, wolf biologists were denying that wolves were a danger to people. A wolf biologist in the service of the Saskatchewan coroner likewise failed to recognize that wolves, habituated to camp garbage delivery, were also targeting people .

How could one uphold the view that wolves are harmless to people, despite centuries of recorded experience to the contrary in Russia , Finland , Scandinavia, Germany , India , Afghanistan , Korea , central Asia, Turkey , Iran , France or Greenland ? In the first instance, the overwhelming experience in North America is that wolves are very shy, difficult to see creatures that avoid people. The causes of such were normally not investigated, although some authors pointed to the facts that wolves were very much prosecuted and thus rare in 20th century North America, and that North Americans are usually armed and quickly eliminated troublesome wolves. Moreover, the killing of wolves in rural settings is not newsworthy, as I can attest to from personal experience . It is thus very difficult from North American accounts to decipher the conditions when wolves are dangerous to people and when they are not.

What about Eurasian wolves? Are they different, and is their behavior thus irrelevant to an understanding of North American wolves? Or are the accounts of wolf attacks on people exaggerated and untrustworthy, and the Little Red Riding Hood fairytale by the brothers Grimm based on misunderstanding, ignorance and exaggerated fears? A respected Canadian biologist, Dr. C. H. Doug Clarke, decided to investigate . He concluded that the killing of people by wolves in Europe was real, but that rabid wolves caused all the attacks. In exonerating healthy wolves, Clarke fell back on his experience with shy Canadian continental wilderness wolves, an experience much as my own and shared by others. One can trace the origin of the “harmless wolf myth” to him . And yet Clark erred! He failed to notice the distinction in behavior between attacks by rabid and by non-rabid wolves. There are differences!

Historically, the most frightening aspect of being bitten by a rabid wolf was the certain death of the victim from rabies. In modern times quick medical intervention can save the victim. Rabid wolves, so it was noted historically, attacked swiftly with great ferocity, bit multiple victims as well as livestock and non-animate objects, and aimed their bite at the face and head of the victim. Consequently, any survivor of a wolf attack could not have been bitten by a rabid wolf. Secondly, rabid wolves do not stalk, sneak or hunt, nor complete an attack, nor drag the victim away for consumption. Yet some victims were saved just in time after having been attacked, subdued and dragged away by wolves. Therefore, these were attacks by non-rabid wolves. Such occurred with sufficient frequency that a pattern of selectivity emerged: in predatory attacks, wolves targeted primarily children . Rabid wolves made no such choice . Also, adults could escape most attacks by single wolves, but never that of a pack.

The second problem is that accounts of wolf attacks are, of course, not scientific data. They are usually reports by witnesses as recorded second hand by the police, priests, doctors and county clerks. As there were few literate persons about in past centuries many attacks must not have been reported. The records are most subjective. There is suspicion that some reports, especially in newspapers, may have been padded or are somehow not trustworthy. Whether it is so is not for scientists to decide, but for historians! Records of predation on humans require the expertise of historian scholarship to locate, verify, clarify and place into perspective. What scientist can do subsequently is to winnow such reports for patterns and trends that relate to what happens to be known about wolf biology. And our modern understanding of wolf biology has been and is changing.

However, North American wolf biologists did not seek the assistance of historians. They also faced language and cultural barriers, and were prematurely enthralled by early insights based on young captive wolves. They also had an abiding respect for Clarke’s sterling authority. Consequently, they did not investigate foreign historical material systematically. Had they done so, they would hardly have concluded that the fairytale of Little Red Riding Hood was based on ignorance, misunderstanding, malice or an exaggerated fear of wolves! Where wolves are de-facto protected by an unarmed populace, where the prey base is diminished and livestock is not abundant, wolves focus on humans – then as now – with frightening consequences. No sovereign would expend the high costs, accept the losses in economic activity or the meager results of wolf control in centuries past were it not for telling reasons .

To the above one must add two factors, the first being: the global impact of a very popular book by a famous Canadian author, Farley Mowat, depicting wolves as harmless, lovable mouse eaters. While Canadian biologists did not fall for this prank , the literati did and are still falling for it. Secondly, this book was most welcome to the Communist Party in Russia, which had systematically suppressed information about man-killing wolves since 1917, but especially during and after World War Two, in order to forestall the call for arms by the populace. So western environmentalists and eastern communists shouted with one voice praising the harmlessness of wolves. The Russian scientist Mikhail P. Pavlov disclosed the matter in a book on wolves after the fall of Communism . His work, upon translation into Norwegian, was denounced with furor leading to the responsible ministry destroying the translation. It was subsequently published in Swedish . An English translation lingered unpublished, as nobody wanted to touch it. It has recently been published .

The historical and current evidence indicates that one can live with wolves where such are severely limited in numbers on an ongoing basis, so that there is continually a buffer of wild prey and livestock between wolves and humans, with an ongoing removal of all wolves habituating to people. The current notion that wolves can be made to co-exist with people in settled landscapes (in multi-use landscapes surrounding houses, farms, villages and cities) is not tenable. Under such conditions wolves becoming territorial will confront people when such walk dogs or approach wolf-killed livestock. In addition even well fed habituated wolves will test people by approaching such, initially nipping at their clothing and licking exposed skin, before mounting a clumsy first attack that may leave victims alive but injured, followed by serious attacks. While a healthy man can fight off a lone wolf with some chances of success, a lone person cannot defeat a pack. And such killed Kenton Carnegie.

1 Kenton Carnegie’s death was investigated on location on November 8th and 9th 2005 by by Constable Alphonse Noey of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with Rosalie Tsannie-Burseth, coroner at Wollaston Lake, with witness statements by Chris Van Galder, Todd Svarchpf, Mark Eikel, and Robert Dennis (Bob) Burseth, as well as forensic investigations. A second investigation on location was carried out by Kelly Crayne and Mario Gaudet, Saskatchewan Conservation Officers on November 10th 2005. The case was reviewed for the chief coroner of Saskatchewan in a confidential report by Drs. Paul C. Paquet and Ernst G. Walker, August 6th 2006. The case was reviewed for Kim and Lori Carnegie, parents of deceased Kenton, by Mark E. McNay who produced a report and testified at the coroner’s inquest. A second scientist asked to investigate the case was Valerius Geist who submitted a two-part report, but was precluded from testifying at the coroner’s hearing. (Correction: A third scientist was Brent Patterson. We three came to similar views). All these reports plus a time line of the tragedy and a critique of Paul Paquet’s position are accessible …….??????(How do we make them accessible???).

2 Gerard McNebel, Noember 18th, 1963, Winnipeg Free Press, p. 12.
3 Mark E. McNay 2002. Wolf-human interactions in Alaska and Canada: review of the case history. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(3):831-843. Mark E. McNay 2002 A case history of wolf-human encounters in Alaska and Canada. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13). J. Beatty. 2000. Vargas Island wolves too used to human contact, observer says. The Vancouver Sun, July 5th, pp. A1-2. Dan Kerslake and Dan Zakreski 2006, reported on the attack on Fred Desjarlais in Saskatchewan, CBC News Online, March 7th 2006. There was a wolf attack in Alaska on Becky Wanamaker on 7 July 2006. See Katie Pesznecker, Anchorage Daily News, July 13th, 2006. September 6th 2006 a lone wolf attacked and wounded six people, four of which were children, in a provincial park near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontariao, The Hamilton Spectator, Sept 7th 2006. Larry Pynn. 2007. Port Moody kayaker fights off starving, predatory wolf. Vancouver Sun. August 1.
4 James Gary Shelton 1998 Bear Attacks. Pogany Productions, Hagensborg, BC. Shelton makes a point of how viciously victims of predatory attacks have been pursued and maligned in Canada and the US by enumerating such in some detail.
5 pp. 29-30 of National Wildlife, February/March 2007 edition in an article entitled “Sexy Beasts”. by Paul Tolmé. Also a video produced by the National Geographic Society, whose misrepresentations upset the coroner Rosalie Tsanni-Burseth, as well as Kenton Carnegie’s parents
6 Paquet, Paul C. and Ernst G. Walker 2006. Review of Investigative Findings Relating to the Death of Kenton Carnegie At Points North, Saskatchewan. Office of Chief Coroner, Saskatchewan Justice, #920, 1801 Hamilton Street, Regina, Saskatchewan. S4P 4B4, Canada.
7 Paul Tolmé, ibid. & National Geographic. Ibid.
8 Banfield, A. W. F. 1964. Review of F. Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf. Canadian Field Naturalist. 78:52-54; Pimlott, D. H. 1966. Review of F. Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf. J. Wildlife Management. 30:236-237.
9 Geist, V. 2003. Vancouver Island wolves. The Virginia Wildlifer, June 2003, pp. 35-39.
10 Geist, V. Sept. 29th 2007 When do wolves become dangerous to humans? & statement by Valerius Geist pertaining to the death of Kenton Carnegie…(website???)
11 Baker, R. O. and R. M. Timm 1998. Management of conflict between urban coyotes and humans in southern California. Pp. 229-312 in R. O. Baker and A. c. Crabb eds. Proc. 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference, University of California, Davis
12 Paquet and Walker 2006 ibid.
13 See Will N. Graves 2007(edited by V. Geist) Wolves in Russia, Detselig, Calgary. Mikhail P. Pavlov, 1982. “The Wolf in Game Management”, 2nd edition 1990; Publisher: Agropromizdat, Moscow.
14 The historian Dr. Antti Lappalainen (opetusneuvos.lappalainen@kolumbus.fi, +35895416946) published his research findings on lethal wolf attacks on humans in Finland under the title “Suden jäljet”, The Tracks of the Wolf, ISBN 952-5118-79-7. Capstick, 1981. Maneaters, Safari Press, Ca. pp. 108-114.
15 Hans Friedrich von Flemming. 1749. Der Vollkommene Teutsche Jäger, Leipzig. P. 108. Brehms Tierleben, p. 137 in my condensed ed. 1952, Safari Verlag, Berlin. D. Müller-Using, M. Wolf and E. Klinghammer 1975 p. 203 in Grzimek’s Animal Encyclopedia, Vol. 12 Mammals III, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York.
16 Jahala and Sharma 1997 Child-lifting by wolves in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India. J. Wildlife Research 292:94-101). Jahal 2003 Status, Ecology and conservation of the Indian wolf Canis lupus pallipes Sykes J. Bombay Natural History Society 100 (2&3) Aug.- Dec. pp. 293-307). See also Rajpurohit, K. S. 1999. Child Lifting: wolves in Hazaribagh, India. AMBIO 28(2), 162-166.
17 Roy Stewart (2004) In his book about travels in Afghanistan “The Places in Between” ( p. 123, Harcourt Books). On the Internet newkerala.com Kabul 18 Feb 2005, It was reported that hungry wolves were driven by freezing cold in the mountains to invade Afghanistan’s villages and have killed and devoured four people in the last two weeks. This was reported by the official Bakhter News Agency (BNA). Heavy snowfall is driving wolves from the mountains toward villages and in addition to four people being killed by wolves 22 have been bitten in Paktia Province which borders Pakistan.
18 The Korean experience is summarized by Robert Neff in Devils in the Darkness, 2007/05/23, copyright 2007 Ohmy News. http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=362934&rel_no=1&isPrint=print
19 Also on the internet on timberwolfinformation.org/info/archieve/newspapers on 2/27/05 from Ankara Turkey it was reported that a ten year old boy named Onur Bahar was killed by a wolf in a field near his house on the outskirts of Talas. The wolf went for the boy’s throat and torn his left arm off.
20 An Iranian colleague reported that in rural areas of Iran villagers were disarmed and lived in great fear of wolves. Possession of weapons during the Shah’s regime was severely punished by the secret police.
21 (French) Moriceau, Jean-Marc (2007). Histoire du méchant loup : 3 000 attaques sur l’homme en France. pp. p.623. ISBN 2213628807. (added subsequently!)
22 Freuchen, P. 1935. Arctic Adventure. Farrah & Rinehart, New York. Peter Freuchen lost a companion to wolves (p. 23, pp. 329, 332) , shot a wolf stalking his children (pp. 347-348), had harrowing experiences with wolves trying to enter his cabin (pp. 16-19). His writings support an observation made to me by a long time resident and hunter in Greenland: where there are wolves, there are no people and vice versa!
23 A report by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of responses by the listening public to their airing of the Kenton Carnegie case. Here is a sample of cases of Wolf/Human interactions that were never aired by the Canadian new media. http://www.cbc.ca/sask/features/wolves/3.html CBC Sakatchewan copied July 2nd 2006.
24 The view of “harmless wolves” was first popularized in Lenin’s and Stalin’s Communist Russia apparently to justify keeping the rural population disarmed (see Pavlov 1982). It was subsequently developed independently in North America, and it is the North American version, which was transplanted later to Europe, becoming a dogma in the process.
25 In an unpublished paper entitled “The Beast of Gévaudan” Dr. Clarke concluded: “Down the long list of recorded attacks by wolves it becomes clear that the Russian baron in his troika is folklore, but the rabid wolf is grim fact. The pattern is universal. The famous wolves of medieval song and story were all rabid”. P. 26 of Russell J. Rutter and Douglas h. Pimlott 1968 The World of the Wolf. Lippincott C. New York.
26 (French) Moriceau, Jean-Marc (2007). Histoire du méchant loup : 3 000 attaques sur l’homme en France. pp. p.623. ISBN 2213628807. (added subsequently)
27 For an account of how rabid wolves act see Chapter 6, Wolf Attacks on Humans by Will Graves (2007) (edited by V. Geist) Wolves in Russia, Detselig, Calgary. Pp 87-103.
28 Hans Friedrich von Flemming in 1749. Der Vollkommene Teutsche Jäger, Leipzig.
29 Banfield 1964. ibid; Pimlot 1966 ibid. See also John Goddard 1996 A real whopper (cover story). Saturday Night, May issue Vol 111 Issue No. 4, p46, 8p, 3bw.
30 Pavlov, Mikhail P. The Wolf in Game Management;; Date of Publication: First edition 1982, 2nd edition 1990; Publisher: Agropromizdat, Moscow; Chapter 12, “The Danger of Wolves to Humans” (pp 136-169); Translated from Russian by Valentina and Leonid Baskin, and Patrick Valkenburg. Edited by wildlife biologists Patrick Valkenburg and Mark McNay. Dr. Leonid Baskin is a well-known Russian zoologist with whom I have worked and co-published in the past. Appendix A. Pavlov’s chapter in Will N. Graves 2007. ibid..
31 Elis Pålsson 2003 Vargens Näringssök och Människan. ISBN 91-631-3651-1, Älmhult.
32 See Appendix A in Graves 2007. ibid.
33 C. D. C. Linnell et al. 2002 The Fear of Wolves, Norse Institutt for Naturforskning. NINA
Oppdragsmelding 731, Trondheim, Norway.

Posted by Tom Remington

While I can agree with Smith that the moose isn’t getting the attention it deserves, I can also say that other species aren’t either much because the MDIFW is strapped for cash and Gov. Baldacci thinks he can cure some of the problems by creating bigger departments and absorbing fish and game into another entity.

Smith suggests that Maine pays much better attention to the lobster than the moose and says the state falls short in taking advantage of the moose as a tourist attraction.

Sure, our quality of place is important, but these two critters are critical to our tourist economy.

The state and its lobsterman take care of their lobsters. But the forlorn moose is left to fend for itself.

To compare the management of lobsters with moose is a stretch, even though I understand Smith’s point. He says lobstermen understand the importance of good management and are willing to fork over money for the cause. What competitive lobsterman wouldn’t do that? They can pass on the added expense to the hungry tourist who comes to Maine to dine on the crusty creature.

Moose hunters cough up a lot of dough over the course of each hunting season and the demands being placed on them to dig deeper is getting old. Moose hunters don’t set traps, harvest the moose and sell it at the local butcher shop for whatever the market value is.

If Smith wants to talk tourism and how the moose and lobster affect the Maine economy, that’s fine but comparing lobstermen with moose hunters isn’t quite the same.

Maine isn’t alone when it comes to trying to find the right balance between catering to the freebie wildlife watchers and to hunters. Survey after survey shows that hunting interest is holding steady or in decline while wildlife viewing is up. In fairness, many of those wildlife viewers are hunters and fishers.

States struggle to find funding to meet the demands of wildlife management. Part of the problems have come from states morphing their fish and game departments into fish and wildlife departments, moving their focus away from managing for game and managing for demanding wildlife viewers who essentially pay nothing for the privilege.

We must remember also that when we begin demanding that wildlife viewers pay their two cents worth, they will also demand better representation for the fees they pay and history shows us that not always are hunters and wildlife viewers in total agreement.

I concur with Smith that Maine should have a more accurate count of their moose population. This demand is always easily asked for but extremely difficult and expensive to do. Let’s face it, even the deer population estimates are only that, an estimate based on data and fancy formulas that get tweaked every year.

I hear demands from hunters all across the country that fish and game should go out and count the animals one by one and get it over with. Oh, really? I believe the most effective way to count game is by aircraft. It’s expensive and still is not highly accurate.

I believe Lee Kantar, Maine’s head deer biologist and now moose biologist, is a smart man and does his job well. I do agree with Smith that a position should have been filled instead of dumping this in Kantar’s lap.

It is obvious to me the department is looking at ways to cut expenses. I’ve said this before and I’ll continue saying it. Maine needs to go in the opposite direction than what Gov. Baldacci is suggesting. The fish and wildlife department needs to return to the fish and game department for the purpose of managing game. If the state wants to start a department of natural resources, then fine. Then they can figure out how to levy fees against the freebie users of our lands and natural resources that hunters, trappers and fishermen have paid for for years but leave the fish and game alone.

Perhaps Smith needs to be reminded as to why we have anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000 moose in the state of Maine. It didn’t happen all by itself and it didn’t happen because somebody thought they could make a buck hauling tourists around in a van hoping to spot one of the gangly creatures mucking it up beside the road. It came from the fish and game management, through restrictive regulations and thought, all bought and paid for by the hunters.

I have no sour grapes that people want to go to Maine to see a moose or eat a lobster. I like doing that myself. What I don’t like is that more and more demands are being put on the fish and wildlife department, while using up my license fees, that aren’t benefiting me as a hunter.

Smith recalls what former Maine deer biologist Gerry Lavigne had to say.

Kantar’s predecessor, retired deer biologist Gerry Lavigne, summed it up well, saying, “You’ve got to put money and you’ve got to put resources into it, and you have to have leadership.”

Not assuming that Lavigne required those to be in order, I might first suggest new leadership. Baldacci must go. He has cost the state of Maine dearly in his poor leadership skills, especially in suggesting that MDIFW should become absorbed into some natural resources quagmire. Bigger government is not better and everyone, including the viewers, will suffer from this move. History proves it through the number of other states doing just as Baldacci is suggesting.

I have to say that I have serious doubts as to whether wildlife watchers and game hunters can operate well as a cohesive unit. It seems the goals of each entity are polarizing and would war with each other.

Moose watchers want one thing – moose to watch. They don’t understand wildlife management and tend to view hunting as nothing more than a reduction in the moose population, which runs contrary to their goals. This presents quite a problem and one that can’t be remedied simply by saying that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife needs to throw more money at the moose issue so both hunters and viewers will have more moose. It’s far too complex an issue and wrought with emotions and politics.

Yes Maine needs to do a better job in managing their moose but I’m suggesting it first begin with new leadership and a better structuring of departments so that all pay their fair share. Then, money will be available to better manage a valuable resource in the moose.

As Smith asks, “Shouldn’t a state agency that brings in $2 million from moose be able to do better than this?”

The answer is yes, as soon as the money stops being spent on none game projects demanded for by non fish and game projects.

Tom Remington

I’ve been working with the folks at KTP and Bob Adams has given me a great Internet connection speed so that I can stream audio and video from our web site. You will be able to do that by clicking this link at Skinny Moose Media broadcasting. We will make this link available at several of our websites so that you can more easily find it.

Let me first give you a bit of information about what we intend to do. The Kittery Trading Post has put together a great slate of events leading up to the actual drawing. Skinny Moose Media intends to be at KTP around 3 p.m. when the festivities begin. We will set up and stream as much audio and video of what’s going on around KTP. We will be somewhat limited in how much we can move around but we’ll do the best we can. I hope also to have a few interviews with some key and interesting people.

Once the actual drawing of names begins, I plan to set up a camera on the podium and just let the audio and video run so nobody misses their name if and when it is called. We plan to provide a link at the same page above that you can check on where we will post photos all through the night as well.

For those interested in listening and/or viewing the stream, here are some pointers. First, you must have high speed Internet access. You will only see the screen constantly trying to buffer if you don’t. Depending on your Internet service provider’s download speed, you should be able to stream constant video and audio.

Should the occasion present itself, which more than likely it will, where you get disconnected from the stream, you may have to refresh your browser page and select the “play” button to begin again.

This should be a great opportunity for those who can’t make the drive to Kittery for the event and those who don’t want to wait until the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife get the list of names posted to their website.

Below is a copy of the flyer KTP is circulating with a list of some of the events. After the flyer, you’ll find a link to the KTP website where you can find a complete list of events.

Full schedule of events from the Kittery Trading Post.

Tom Remington

I’d like to invite you to compete in the Upper Andro Two Fly Contest and Drift Boat Competition scheduled for June 12 and 13. This is the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance’s primary fund-raiser for the year. Our sponsors, Kittery Trading Post, L.L. Bean, the Orvis Company, Caddis and Cane, Sun Valley Sports, and Clackacraft have donated over $5,000 worth of prizes.

Information and registration is available on line at www.upperandro.com. The releases below give an overview of the events.

If you are a guide, invite two of your best sports to join you for the event and introduce them to the trout fishery on the Upper Andro. Did you know that Maine’s record rainbow trout was caught last June on the Upper Andro? If you are an avid angler but a mid-week 9 to 5’er, perhaps your employer would sponsor your team. We’d be happy to post any banners or posters from you company to give them recognition.

Many of our lodging members have special overnight rates. Just mention that you are competing in the Two Fly Contest to receive the rates. May we suggest The Bethel Inn-$133 per night for a double occupancy room including tax (800-654-0125) or The Bethel Hill B&B- $230 for 2 nights exclusive of tax or bring your friends and stay at the Village House sleeping 6 for $375 for 2 nights (207-824-2461). Information about other UAAA lodging and camping members is available at www.upperandro.com

The final day of registration is Wednesday, June 11 at Sun Valley Sports. Pick up your registration kit, rules, and barbecue coupon early so you can get out on the water at the crack of dawn. Any questions, give me a call at 207-824-7533.

Yours truly,

Rocky Freda
Sun Valley Sports
UAAA Director

Upper Andro Two Fly Contest

Set for June 12 and 13

The Upper Andro Anglers Alliance is sponsoring its Annual Two Fly Contest on June 12 and 13 in Bethel, Maine.

The Two Fly contest will test the skills of anglers to fly fish for the most and the largest of the three trout species, brown, rainbow and brook found in the Upper Androscoggin River from the New Hampshire border to Rumford.

Contestants may use only two flies during the event, which starts early Thursday morning and ends at noon on Friday. A fly is defined as made from natural or synthetic materials tied to a single pointed hook. No tandems or treble hooks are allowed. Teams of three including two anglers and a referee/oarsman must fish from an open boat-drift boat, row boat or raft. All fish must be released live.

Prizes include rods and fishing gear supplied by Kittery Trading Post, L.L. Bean, Caddis and Cane, Sun Valley Sports and the Orvis Company.

Official contest rules and a registration form are available on line at www.upperandro.com or by phoning 1-877-851-7533. The entry fee is $375 per team and includes an outdoor barbecue at the Bethel Inn. Proceeds from the event will benefit the Upper Andro Anglers Alliance.

Northeast Drift Boat Championship

The First Annual Northeast Drift Boat Championship will be held Friday afternoon, June 13 on the Upper Androscoggin River in Bethel Maine. Designed as a spectator event, the competition will test oarsmen’s skills at launching, navigating a course and rowing speed. Each drift boat must carry at least one angler, who must remain standing throughout the timed race. The launch will be from Bethel Outdoor Adventures on Route 2 and the finish line is at Davis Park in Bethel-a distance of a quarter mile.

Prizes include drift boat equipment provided by Clackacraft. A registration form is available on line at www.upperandro.com or by phoning 1-877-851-7533. The entry fee is $50 or is included in the Two-Fly Contest fee if the drift boat is competing in both events.