National Wildlife Federation De-volves into Climate Alarmists!

Guest essay by Jim Steele

Since I can ever remember, my greatest joys in life came from exploring nature. During my childhood, I coveted every Golden Nature Guide and eagerly read every edition of National Wildlife Federation’s Ranger Rick series. Sadly the National Wildlife Federation seems to have devolved into an organization eager to profit from climate alarmism. Instead of enhancing our understanding of nature as they once had, they have chosen fear mongering with twisted facts. Instead of providing honest information that advances wiser environmental stewardship, they are ‘crying wolf’ and undermining scientific credibility. Crying wolf will only do more harm than good.

Every March for over 70 years NWF sponsored National Wildlife Week. In years gone by I saw this as a wonderful positive, suggesting people stop and think about win-win scenarios for people and wildlife But now Ranger Rick and the NWF join David Attenborough in my list of fallen nature heroes who let the politics of climate change hijack meaningful science. Those who visit the NWF’s website and click on “Threats to Wildlife” will see Global Warming at the top of its list. And when the naive click on their list of climate-threatened species, they might not realize just how devoid of reality NWF claims have become. Here is a quick comparison between reality and their narrative for their first 5 threatened species : polar bears, moose, pika, ringed seals, and waterfowl. I encourage you to let them know that next year’s National Wildlife Week would serve a much higher purpose, if they provided more honest and objective narratives.

#5 Waterfowl:


NWF claims:

“One of the most important waterfowl breeding areas in North America is the Prairie Pothole Region on both sides of the U.S./Canadian border in the northern Great Plains. Models of future drought conditions in the region due to global warming project significant declines in Prairie Pothole wetlands–up to 91 percent.

This could lead to a 9-69 percent reduction in the abundance of ducks breeding in the region, affecting populations of mallards, gadwall, blue-winged teal, northern pintails, canvasbacks, redheads and ruddy ducks throughout North America’s flyways.”


In 2014 the US Fish and Wildlife Service reported the exact opposite trend. From Flyways.US, “The estimate of 49.2 million breeding ducks was 8% higher than last year’s estimate of 45.6 million, and 43% above the long-term average.

Since the 1985, low duck populations have doubled thanks to efforts of wildlife managers and private hunting clubs like Ducks Unlimited who are restoring prime breeding habitat such as the prairie potholes. As I had presented earlier, in contrast to James Hansen’s prediction of apocalyptic CO2‑caused droughts that can only be prevented by reducing CO2 emissions, humans have been restoring watersheds and making the land wetter than before, even during severe natural droughts. It’s not just the lost credibility from “crying wolf”, but Hansen and NWF are advocating wrong and harmful solutions. The greatest threat to the ducks’ breeding habitat is currently subsidized agriculture. Due to climate alarmism, government subsidies are promoting the conversion of prairie potholes into cornfields. That not only threatens breeding habitat, but further depletes regional aquifers.

Here are a few selected graphs of population trends from that US Fish and Wildlife Service 2014 report.




#4 Ringed Seals


NWF claims:

“Arctic sea ice has contracted dramatically over the last decade, and climate models predict that continuing sea ice decline may soon lead to conditions insufficient to support seals. Ringed seals seldom come ashore, depending almost exclusively on sea ice for their reproduction and livelihood.”


Ringed Seals are the most abundant of Arctic seals and they are most abundant wherever sea ice is thinner. Their abundance declines rapidly in regions with thick multi‑year sea ice. Ringed seals only depend on sea ice for breeding and molting from late March to mid June, and there has been little change in that seasonal fast‑ice during that season. When NWF bemoans that “Arctic sea ice has contracted dramatically over the last decade”, they are referring to reduced September sea ice, which is meaningless for breeding and molting seals. In fact, NWF’s alarm contradicts peer‑reviewed research that documents why reduced summer ice benefits ringed seals.

As discussed previously in the benefits of less Arctic ice, I reported: 1) ringed seals require thin ice to create their winter breathing holes. 2) Less summer ice promotes more photosynthesis and more plankton. 3) Less summer ice promotes greater productivity that increases the abundance of Arctic cod, which the seals rely on to fatten for the winter. 4) Researchers observed heavier ice was detrimental to ringed seal survival in the 1990s similar to other researchers who reported heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and 1980s as the major cause of ringed seal reproductive failures and abundance decline.

#3 Pika



NWF claims:

“Once they move upslope to reach the top and find the temperatures still too warm, the pika has no place else to go.”

“In fact, they have already disappeared from over one-third of their previously known habitat in Oregon and Nevada. Now, the situation is so dire that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering the pika for protection under the Endangered Species Act.”




Extensive surveys by the US Forest Service contradict the NWF’s cry that warming is forcing pika upslope, and with “no place left to go” face extinction. As discussed here, 19% of the currently known pika populations in California and Nevada are at lower elevations than ever documented by any study, including benchmark studies during the cooler early 1900s. Further north in the Columbia River Gorge, another independent researcher also found pika at much lower elevations, surviving at temperatures much higher than their models had predicted.

NWF’s used the alarmists’ most commonly cherry-picked statement that pika have “already disappeared from over one-third of their previously known habitat.” That figure came from a paper that only sampled a small subset of the greater pika populations, and purposefully limited the study to more isolated Nevada habitat. Habitat isolation reduces the normal frequency of re-colonization events, yet subsequent surveys found a few “extinct” colonies were re‑colonized a few years laer. Pika expert Dr. Andrew Smith’s testimony to the California Department of Fish and Game stating pika were not threatened, stated why that one third figure was deceptive:

“This statement refers to the well researched, documented and presented cases of a sub-set of patches historically occupied by pikas in the Great Basin investigated by Erik Beever and colleagues. Unfortunately, to reach “one third extinct” – again, you have to have a numerator and a denominator…and the sample used is a subset of all possible localities. Even in this relatively restricted part of the Great Basin, many of Beever’s sites are not in a mountain range, and of those which are, pikas are extant in other localities in the same mountain range. Thus, one would have to tabulate all pika habitat in the region to make this claim, which has not been done.”



#2 Moose



NWF claims:

Moose are in jeopardy across the U.S. – from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine; to Minnesota and Michigan; and even Montana. One of America’s most iconic animals is at risk of becoming just a memory. It’s time to take action on climate change”

“The New Hampshire moose population has plummeted by more than 40 percent in the last decade from over 7,500 moose to just 4,000 today, and biologists attribute some of this decline to increasing parasite loads influenced by shorter winters caused by climate change.”

“However, this rich diversity of fish and game, and the economy that depends on it, is at risk from a warming world. In New Hampshire, declining moose numbers have lead to a 80 percent reduction in moose hunting permits, down from 675 in 2007 to just 124 [permits]in 2014. As the moose population drops, the recreational activities and associated revenue surrounding the species is sure to follow.”


Moose are well known to undergo booms and busts, and the current drop to about 4000 individuals, is still 3 times higher than the late 1970s. The NWF’s alarm cry again cherry-picked the facts. As discussed here, in New England, moose were more abundant than deer when the Pilgrims arrived. But due to deforestation for farmland and overhunting, moose have been absent from Massachusetts and Vermont for 200 years. In 1901 less than 20 moose were believed to inhabit New Hampshire. And in contrast to alarmists’ global warming theory suggesting global warming is forcing species northward, since 1980 moose have migrated south from New Hampshire into Massachusetts and Connecticut. New Hampshire’s moose population had stagnated at fewer than 15 individuals since the mid 1800s and did not begin to rebound until the 1970s. As the climate warmed, moose numbers exploded. In 1988 there were 1600, and by the late 1990s numbers more than quadrupled to 7500. That increase resulted in more moose‑car collisions resulting in a public clamor for increased moose hunts, so by 2007 hunting permits had soared. Now that moose have eaten themselves out of habitat, their numbers as well as hunting permits have declined.

#1 Polar Bear



NWF claims:

“Population sizes decreasing”

“As climate change melts sea ice, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050. This dramatic decline in the polar bear is occurring in our lifetime, which is but a miniscule fraction of the time polar bears have roamed the vast Arctic seas.”

“In just 20 years the ice-free period in Hudson Bay has increased by an average of 20 days, cutting short polar bears’ seal hunting season by nearly three weeks. The ice is freezing later in the fall, but it is the earlier spring ice melt that is especially difficult for the bears. They have a narrower timeframe in which to hunt during the critical season when seal pups are born. As a result, average bear weight has dropped by 15 percent, causing reproduction rates to decline. The Hudson Bay population is down more than 20 percent.”


As mentioned above, harsher winters and heavier ice is detrimental to ringed seals, the bears’ main prey. When seals suffer from thicker ice, so do bears. As I have discussed here and Dr. Susan Crockford here, researchers have observed that bear numbers and their body condition both decline in years with thick spring time ice.

Claims that the bears weight dropped by 15 percent is “zombie data” from the late 1990s. Unpublished data reveals bears body condition (a measure of their weight relative to length) has increased since the 1997 in the western Hudson Bay. Not publishing this observed rebound in body condition is deceptive. In the South Beaufort Sea population, the body condition for 95% of all the other bears, both adult males and females, sub-adult females as well as all cubs, showed no signs of nutritional stress. Adult females represented about 34% of all captures, and despite being under the most stress due to an eight-month fast while giving birth and nursing their cubs, their body condition had improved!


Based on many decades of evidence, the Inuit declare it is “the time of the most polar bears.” In contrast, reports of the polar bear decline have been based on cherry-picked short‑term trends. Here are some longer‑term trends to put polar bear population fluctuations into perspective:

-The “Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada” listed Canada’s polar bears only as a species of “special concern” in 1991 and has examined and reconfirmed that status ever since despite political pressure from climate alarmists. In making that designation they reported that population models had projected that only 4 of 13 subpopulations (approximately 28% of 15,500 polar bears in Canada) have a high risk of declining in the next 36 years. Although some declines in Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea were attributed to climate change, most declines were attributed to unsustainable harvest in Kane Basin and Baffin Bay. In contrast, seven subpopulations (43% of the total population) are projected to be stable or increasing. Trends could not be projected for two subpopulations (29% of the total population).


– Derocher’s PBSG website designates the Davis Strait population as “declining”. However based on 1980 estimates of 900 bears, the population has more than doubled. By 1993 that estimate rose to 1400 and by 2007 the estimate stood at about 2150 bears. If you click on the comments to find the rationale for listing them as “declining” you would find only empty speculation: “New estimates of natural survival and current harvest suggest the population may begin to decline. Scientific and local knowledge suggest the population has significantly increased in the past.”

– PBSG expert Oystein Wiig studied bears of Svalbard, and in 1998 published: “The population was totally protected in 1973 and probably doubled in size from 1970 to 1980”

– The Fox Basin encompasses the northern end of the Hudson Bay. In 1996 studies estimated the bear population to be 2119 and then was raised to 2300 bears in 2004. The results from a recent aerial survey published in 2012 now estimate that the Fox Basin embraces about 2580 bears. Instead of listing this population as increasing, or at least stable, Derocher’s PBSG “hid” their thriving population with an odd “data deficient” designation.

– Only 333 bears were believed to inhabit the Gulf of Boothia in 1984 but the numbers quadrupled by theyear 2000. Estimates of 900 were established in the 1990s and “following the completion of a mark-recapture inventory in spring 2000, the subpopulation was raised to 1523 ± 285 bears” Although those studies would support the Inuit claims of increasing bears, the PBSG designated this population as “Stable.”

– The Lancaster Sound subpopulation was estimated at 2541 ± 391 based on an analysis of both historical and current mark-recapture data in 1997. The PBSG writes that population is considerably larger than the previous estimate of 1675. However they oddly listed this population as declining.


-The Western Hudson Bay population is one of only two populations that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada referenced as declining possibly due to climate change. PBSG expert Ian Stirling had published a paper in 1999 calculating that the population had grown from about 500 bears in 1981 to about 1100 bears in 1997. Derocher estimated this region held about 1000 bears in 1995 and believed “the population had been lower during the 1960s”. The Canadian Wildlife Service’s model later suggested that the number of bears had dropped from about 1100 in 1994 to about 950 in 2004. They predicted the number of bears would continue to drop to as low as 600 in the next 15 years due to global warming. However the latest aerial survey by the Nunavut government, “Western Hudson Bay Bear Aerial Surveys, 2011” estimated that the population now stands at over 1000 bears.

-Southern Beaufort Sea population had increased from approximately 500 females in 1967 to over 1000 in 1998 according to PBSG expert Steven Amstrup in 2001. Assuming females represented half the total, Amstrup believed the total population likely exceeded 2000 bears. However for the purpose of setting safe hunting quotas he decided to be conservative and officially designated the population at 1800 bears.

It’s a sad commentary on the politics of climate scientists when the once beloved Ranger Rick is now used to promote false facts and climate alarmism to our school children.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 1, 2015 6:04 am

Since I can ever remember, my greatest joys in life came from exploring nature.

I’ve always been more into parasitology, which is the study of how nature “explores” us.

Reply to  Tucci78
April 1, 2015 10:08 am

I’ve always been into parasitology also, which is the study of how Government Parasites “explore” us.

Reply to  Dipchip
April 1, 2015 1:36 pm

I believe that’s a “parasitocracy.”

Reply to  Dipchip
April 1, 2015 2:22 pm

Lisa: I was attracted to this discipline by how their way of life impacts my way of life.
Parasitology is the study of parasites, their hosts, and the relationship between them. As a biological discipline, the scope of parasitology is not determined by the organism or environment in question, but by their way of life.

April 1, 2015 6:10 am

It’s absolutely outrageous the way everyone who knows what they’re talking about has been taken in by the climate hoax! Not just all the climate scientists, but the naturalists, the zoologists, the botanists, the oceanographers, it’s almost as though the entire scientific establishment believes this nonsense now!

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 6:44 am

If they don’t do this, they are punished.
It is all about the CO2 taxes…taxes on ‘thin air’ which is now ‘pollution’ via fiat. Trillions of profits from exploiting this tax is making rich people much richer so they won’t reward anyone telling the truth about the climate and the truth is, we are now entering a dangerous cooling cycle that will last a minimum of 30 years but most likely will be another Little Ice Age unless it turns into a genuine Ice Age which is just about due.

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 7:13 am

First commenter, well done, do you get an extra bonus for that? And, you have concluded that “everyone who knows what they’re talking about” agrees that we are experiencing a “climate hoax?” There are a lot of people on here who know what they are talking about. Would you expect fair and balanced commentary from the National Wildlife Federation? You did not respond to the post, to the many and carefully-researched valid points rebutting the NWF, you merely resort to ridicule. Have some more Kool-Aid…

Reply to  Michael Moon
April 1, 2015 8:58 am

Well I would probably responded to the points made in the post in more detail if I’d bothered to read it.
You see, for most people ‘environmental group agrees with all other environmental groups’ isn’t much of a story.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Michael Moon
April 1, 2015 10:25 am

Hey, Gulbulgaria, I think… you are not a troll, but could have used language more precisely and avoided having people thinking you were one. “…people who {are supposed to} know that they’re talking about… ” might have been a better choice.
My response to you is that these experts in their fields are NOT, for the most part, taken in. They are (some probably with a wince) caving in to the racket that extorts their l1es about climate to keep their funding coming. Also, many groups such as the Sierra Club have a lot of windmill investors pulling the strings behind the scene — their investments would be worthless without government subsidies/regulation.
In short: money is the issue, not genuine belief in AGW fantasy science.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Michael Moon
April 1, 2015 10:35 am

Dear G., I would be remiss if I did not direct your attention to Matthew R. Epp’s response to you here (I read it after I posted mine, but his was written much earlier):

Dave Worley
Reply to  Michael Moon
April 1, 2015 8:29 pm

It’s laziness. It’s much easier to make stuff up than to perform real sampling and crunch real numbers. Modeling and extrapolation can be done while texting your mates.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 8:07 am

“It’s absolutely outrageous the way everyone who knows what they’re talking about has been taken in by the climate hoax!”
Don’t put me in that category. I forecast crop yields for a living, especially corn, soybeans and wheat. This is based on all elements that effect these crops. I’ve also been an operational meteorologist since 1982.
There is no question that the weather/climate for growing crops in the key growing region of the US Cornbelt and surrounding areas over the last 3 decades has been the best since humans began measuring weather/climate there.
Of course I don’t get money for research or work for the government or have other connections that create cognitive bias.
When I’m wrong………….I lose a lot of money, so my analysis had better be based on reality.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
April 1, 2015 9:07 am

Mike, could you please let me know if you are at all interested in the futures markets? If so, I have a little present for you.

michael hart
Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 9:02 am

Gulbulgaria is also the newest troll under the bridge at Bishop Hill.
Where I live, the Mallards quacking-season appears completely undisturbed in recent years. Quite the contrary.
And don’t get me started on the pigeons. They are going at it hammer and tongs.

Reply to  michael hart
April 1, 2015 9:58 am

It is in fact rather amusing the way he admits not having bothered to read the post and at the same spouts off about the folks “who know what they are talking about.” Obviously he doesn’t know who Jim Steele really is, or traffic would be halted all around him until he stopped blushing.

Janice Moore
Reply to  michael hart
April 1, 2015 10:27 am

Oh, man, Duster, great wit! +1
(and I think Gulbulg is probably not a troll, just wrote hastily… and a bit sloppily)

Janice Moore
Reply to  michael hart
April 1, 2015 10:51 am

To prevent those unfamiliar with WUWT expert Dr. Steele’s work from embarrassing themselves…
See Jim Steele’s excellent book here:
Another thorough, worthwhile, and well-written, post, Jim Steele — THANK YOU FOR DOING SO MUCH TO PROMOTE TRUTH (and, thus, FREEDOM)!

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 9:18 am

Obviously you didn’t even read the post. Afraid of facts much? Of course it is easier to be a true believer if you just accept the AGW/Global warming/Climate Change outlandish statements and those ever present models without checking the facts.

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 9:37 am

As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.
My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out.
In my entire career I found only one other person willing to stand up for what was right instead of going along with what was easiest. She was also fired for her honesty. Most people are followers not leaders. I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about. That practice alone should make people wonder about “The Science” Real science is about the quest for truth and facts not following “Authority” not being a member of the “A” list.

n Big Science, money is power. Money is publications. Money is promotion and tenure, television time, awards, rewards and a permanent ticket out of coach. There’s simply no incentive for scientists to do anything but perpetuate their issues.

Reply to  alexwade
April 1, 2015 5:14 pm

“I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader.”
The fallacy in this thought is that it fails to recognize the true power, behind the scenes, is Truth. For example, the boiling point of water doesn’t care who wins an election; it is what it is.
Over and over people are so seduced by the attractiveness of power that they resort to falsehood to grasp it. One way or another, they justify their wrongdoing, promising tomorrow to repay for today’s ripoff, making a mantra of “the ends justify the means”.
Then over and over you see such powerful people slowly rot, (often from the inside out), as their facade of well-being is slowly corroded by Truth. In the end Truth trumps all the cleverness of power politics, and even kings come to understand they are powerless before it. Maybe it isn’t as obvious as Nebuchadnezzar going mad for seven years, but it is a reality.
Perhaps it is due to something as simple as the fact that studying Truth leads to wisdom, while studying falsehood leads to ignorance, and ignorant people do ignorant stuff that, in the end, ruins them.

Michael 2
Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 9:41 am

“it’s almost as though the entire scientific establishment believes this nonsense now!”
Precisely. I can understand why all government funded agencies must believe it but I am dismayed by the National Wildlife Foundation (and Scientific American and National Geographic and…)
“Indeed, in the face of climate change, these needs and associated costs are expected to grow sharply. ”
Climate change is sucking money from everything; NWF has little choice but to toot the same horn and play the same tune or be left holding an empty bag.
One thing is common everywhere: “Send money!”

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 10:14 am

It does seem that many people today are making claims that ‘climate change is causing…[insert some drastic gasp inducing statistic about an animal or environment]” – and quite often there is more than one thing that is causing the severe drop in the presence of an animal, and most often the changing climate is the smallest part of what is causing a species to have issues (or not as the case may be). As this article so rightly shows – man doing other things like hunting and habitat destruction has more impact, and as this article also shows, when we stop doing that, the species bounces back (not that you’d know it for polar bears or mallards etc…). By telling the people that ‘climate might be having some impact – but not mentioning deforestration/bush fire prevention/hunting/other-artificial-thing-man-imposed-on-environment is worse for the species is just plain bad, bad, bad – because by knowing that climate change is small but [insert artificial bad action by humans] is worse, means we CAN take swift and satisfying preventative measures to stop the disappearance of a species or ecosystem by stopping said ‘bad’ action. Yet we do nothing because it gets thrown back into that vague court of ‘reduce your CO2 emissions and we’ll save the species.’
Wrong – not if something else we do is having a bigger impact!
This, I think is fundamentally what I hate about the whole cllimate change dogma – so often something else is having a bigger impact on a species or ecosystem than the climate, and thinking that after 20 years of inaction, we might one day start to reduce our CO2 footprint and this might have an impact on preserving said ecosystem or species is so bad. Why, no one even seems to have a firm figure one how long it will take for all man-made CO2 emissions to be removed from the atmosphere by nature, so we could be talking 5 years, 70 years, 200 years…And meanwhile, because habitat destruction/hunting etc is WORSE for the poor species/ecosystem, we still continue to destroy it while waiting for the supposed benefits of reduced CO2 emissions to kick in?! Such bad thinking.

Brandon C
Reply to  Illogica
April 1, 2015 11:30 pm

Your post reminds me of a story on the CBC a year or 2 ago. It was in regards to a new study saying climate change was causing severe lose of genetic diversity. The story was about 10 paragraphs long and was all about how diversity was going down and global warming was the cause. In the last paragraph they adding in the other factors, mono-cropping, lose of habitat, expanding cities, etc were also having an effect. I found the paper and it stated the “other factors”: mono-cropping, lose of habitat, expanding cities, etc were having a severe effect on genetic diversity. The only mention in the paper of climate change was a single mention that said climate change could exacerbate the problem in the future. They even interviewed the author and he talked about global warming, not the other factors. The media has lost all common sense on this issue.

Reply to  Illogica
April 2, 2015 6:28 am

….and quite often there is more than one thing that is causing the severe drop in the presence of an animal, and most often the changing climate is the smallest part of what is causing a species to have issues…

But I think you’ve missed the point. In the examples given in this blog post, the claims of “severe drop in the presence” have all been refuted. You’re accepting the claim and expounding other possible causes. The main point is – the claim of threatened extinction is false. In other words, a lie, deceit, deception, dishonesty, disinformation, distortion, evasion, fabrication, falsehood, fiction, forgery, inaccuracy , misrepresentation, myth, perjury, tale, fable, falsification, fib, fraud, guile, hyperbole, invention, libel, misstatement, obloquy, prevarication, subterfuge, whopper, tall story.

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 12:19 pm

It’s absolutely outrageous the way everyone who knows what they’re talking about has been taken in by the climate hoax!….
Not nearly as outrageous as making themselves look like fools…..

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 12:55 pm

“It’s absolutely outrageous the way everyone who knows what they’re talking about has been taken in by the climate hoax! “
If they have been taken by the hoax, it is very clear that they don’t know what they’re talking about, isn’t it?
Like yourself, for example.

Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 1, 2015 4:01 pm

There are few, if any naturalists, zoologists, botanists, oceanographers, etc. writing for these magazines.
They are almost completely journalists and they write what they are told to write.

Peter Miller
Reply to  Gubulgaria
April 2, 2015 1:30 am

Absolutely correct.
But you can make a difference. In the UK, I made a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about a WWF advertisement begging for money and using a pack of deliberate alarmist lies/fibs/untruths about polar bears. I provided a bunch of facts and references.
I received a fluff response, but the advertisement disappeared.
Most of these funds use fund raising tactics they learned from some of those pseudo-Christian cults which infest parts of the USA. Basically, they fleece the gullible ‘chosen ones’ of their hard earned cash by telling them a bunch of alarming fantasy tales. WWF, Friends of the Earth, NWF, Greenpeace and the Sacred Church of the Third Unicorn, they all have the same tactics and goals.

April 1, 2015 6:17 am

The indoctrination is important. Not the facts. I and my wife are avid birders. Used to
belong to Audubon society. They too went rapidly downhill in the early 80’s.
Now they pay no attention to the Bird Shredders and Fast cookers in the American
west. because they serve a “Higher Purpose”-of shaking down the taxpayer for Big Green..

Reply to  tgmccoy
April 1, 2015 6:39 am

But some bird shredders in Ohio do shut down at night to save a threatened bat, rendering windpower even less economical. But, do not worry. It is only your tax money not at work.

April 1, 2015 6:23 am

The question is why? Why would the National Wildlife Federation feel the need to blatantly lie or put more generously, mis-represent?
It is an interesting cultural question, how an idea takes hold, spreads through populations and institutions who blindly jump on board to the point of ‘fibbing” in order to maintain the idea.
The inquisition was widely accepted as the cultural norm for 700 years with Satan and demons widely accepted, slavery a cultural norm since human recorded history and only relatively recently is no longer considered “normal”. History is replete with ideas that have taken over cultures with little to no evidence, reason or morality involved.
Global warming is one of the great demons of the 21st century and has certainly caught on. In this day of reason, science and rationality do not know how this is possible, but here we are.
On a bright note unlike the inquisition, skeptics are only metaphorically burned at the stake.

Reply to  Alx
April 1, 2015 6:37 am

I don’t think there is any question why: Ranger Rick and others are all subsumed into the sausage grinder of fundraising. And like all sausages, few people want to inquire into the details by which tens and hundreds of millions of dollars are skimmed so that board members, executives, consultants, and lawyers can be paid their 6 and 7 figure sums.

Reply to  c1ue
April 1, 2015 7:09 am

I agree with you completely on that. I know some of the people involved in fund-raising – and btw, it’s all the same, whether it’s for a non-profit, for a school, for a politician, for whatever – it’s a “fungible” skill, by which I mean someone who can do it for one cause can easily do it for another. You just market test your pitches and see which ones are most marketable, and coming up with a way to scare a segment of the population is always the most sure-fire way to bring in contributions. (people just don’t contribute as much if they kind of agree, but aren’t emotionally hooked)
The key that the average public doesn’t realize is that the marketer doesn’t personally care at all about the pitch he’s making – if he is personally involved, he might not be able to be as profitable. All he has to do is figure out which emotional pitch is most effective at motivating the True Believers to part with a significant chunk of their cash.
In religious circles, this is known as Shearing the Sheep. And it’s the heart of every “movement” you see making pitches today. Just remember this – none of the people doing this fundraising, for anyone, actually believe any of the crap they’re selling. It’s not their job to believe it. It’s just their job to sell it.

Reply to  Alx
April 1, 2015 6:39 am

The question is why? Why would the National Wildlife Federation feel the need to blatantly lie or put more generously, mis-represent?

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
The real business of the people who run the National Wildlife Federation is getting money out of people. They (correctly) see their donors as preponderantly “low-information” types, and so they exploit scare headlines to grab eyeballs.
“If it bleeds, it leads.”
This is rocket science?

Reply to  Alx
April 1, 2015 6:46 am

April 1, 2015 at 6:23 am
The question is why? Why would the National Wildlife Federation feel the need to blatantly lie or put more generously, mis-represent?”

They don’t simply “need to blatantly lie”, Alx, but …
remember the scorpion: it is in their nature.

Reply to  Alx
April 1, 2015 7:20 am

Alx, in reference to your “interesting cultural question”, I could think of more accurate adjectives; try ‘atrocious’. The flowering maturity of “eugenics” and “survival of the fittest” resulted in Nazism and WWII. You mention the inquisition. One real horror of that was the meticulous eradication of the Inca Empire. Now, you have the University of Illinois investigating how and why their crop yields, from high-altitude ‘potato platform’ out-produce any sort of modern green-house cultivation three fold. Or why the Japanese are suddenly studying Inca ‘earthquake-proof’ architecture. Look all of this up; you will have days of interesting reading. Better yet, visit Peru’s mountains for a couple of weeks.
From Freud on, people have investigated “psychotic (removed from reality) mental illness”. This study seems to have only focused on the individual. Overlooked is contagious delusion; more have died from that than from all the plagues and diseases in history; such people as Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Josif Stalin, Mao and even Saul Alinsky and his continuing influence in this nation come to mind. These psychotic individuals seem to be able to infect entire nations and continents with their pathologies. Now we have “Global Warming” in association with other increasingly popular manifestations. How does this occur?

April 1, 2015 6:25 am

Follow the money..

April 1, 2015 6:26 am

Alarmists lie.
Well you knew damn well that they did. So what’s new?

April 1, 2015 6:39 am

Another publication no longer readable is the very insulting and insane National Geographic.

Reply to  emsnews
April 1, 2015 10:53 am

Insane or inane?
What the hell, there’s not that much difference.

Reply to  old44
April 1, 2015 6:01 pm

Put me down for both.

April 1, 2015 6:41 am

“It’s a sad commentary on the politics of climate scientists when the once beloved Ranger Rick is now used to promote false facts and climate alarmism to our school children.”
Yes, and we’ve also lost Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Sadly, from the new “Cosmos” series, we’ve lost Neil deGrasse Tyson as well.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 1, 2015 7:14 am

you mean Bill Nye the Jew-hating Nazi-Sympathizer guy? The guy who says that it was all the Jews fault that the Germans were so mean to them back in the 30’s and 40’s?

Reply to  wws
April 2, 2015 11:47 am

You should give a reference / link to stuff like that, we need to dish the (true)dirt on the warmmunists, the same as they try on us.
Sadly they have turned ‘the debate’ into a war of attrition, so let us be the last men standing, as I’ve said before – it ain’t going to be nice or quick but…..we do have nature on our side.

April 1, 2015 6:43 am

How is it that the NWF can cherry-pick so blatantly..?

April 1, 2015 6:47 am

I can confirm of recent (seemingly temporary) migration of moose into the southern parts of New England.
I live in Southern New Hampshire, 40 – 50 miles north of downtown Boston. Southern New Hampshire is “suburbia in the woods”.
Around 2008 to 2012 we would see moose in our neighborhood, sometimes walking down our suburban street or in one of the few remaining local farmer’s fields.
But not in the last few years.
Northern New Hampshire, of course, is still thick with Moose. You are guaranteed to see them from your car in the Connecticut Lakes region near the Canadian Border. If you camp, hike or canoe there, as I did once with my son, be careful. They will surround you, and kick-up a fuss.

April 1, 2015 6:48 am

Talking of moose in Michigan, there was a report in the Detroit Free Press noting that the number of Moose had declined over the last few years. The report attributed the decline to the last two winters being exceptionally bitter. That attribution was followed by the obligatory statement that global warming represented the greatest long-term threat to the moose.

Matthew R. Epp
April 1, 2015 6:56 am

@Gubulgaria – Follow the money. If you want grants from the govt. then you need to tell them weat they want to hear. The UN , and the US Govt WANT people to believe the climate change hoax so they “require” an endorsement otherwise your next grant application may not be granted.
Matthew R. Epp

April 1, 2015 6:56 am

The moose are swamp critters. We get them in NY in swampy areas. They love water. Ice=not so much. Indeed, the lakes here where I live are still frozen from shore to shore this week! A complete disaster for moose.
I know people who are over 90 years old out here and they say they have never ever seen such thick late spring ice.

April 1, 2015 7:26 am

I take it a lot of the NWF income is based on donations? If so the ignorant and misguided will donate or donate more out of a sense of guilt for the flights they take and big V8 cars they drive. They probably learned this trick from WWF, Greenpeace and governments. Over here (UK) we have taxes and subsidies on anything that creates CO2, with the greater the creation, the greater the percentage of payment.
If I attempted to do as an individual, what governments and charities do, I would be arrested and charged with obtaining money under false pretenses.

Dodgy Geezer
April 1, 2015 7:45 am

Individual humans think.
Humans en mass follow the one in front.
It is of no value to talk about real data and truth when dealing with a mass of humans, because a mass behaves entirely differently from a single human. I would guess the attitude of the NWF senior manager when considering this web page was not “Is it true?”, but instead:
1) – does this match what everyone else is saying?
2) – is it going to result in any problems for the NWF?
3) – does it make for a readable web page?
So long as the answers to the above are “Yes”, “No”, and “Yes”, the page will go ahead. Note that the question “Is it true?” does not need to be asked. The senior manager is quite safe so long as every one else is saying the same thing. If he wanted his pages to be TRUE, he would need to:
1) – do some research of his own
2) – prepare to respond to major attacks from activists
3) – accept that he now has a reputation for causing problems, which is career-limiting.
You can therefore see why the page is as it is.,.

T Casper
April 1, 2015 7:46 am

I grew up in the boreal forest in northern Saskatchewan. Both my parents are from farms in southern Saskatchewan. When I was a kid in the 70s and early 80s, there were no moose around the prairie farms of my grandparents. Nowadays, we regularly see moose around the arid, southwest Saskatchewan farm where my mom grew up. Their range has increased pretty dramatically in my lifetime.

P R Belanger
Reply to  T Casper
April 1, 2015 9:54 am

So true.
I am not in SK anymore but when I visit my in-laws around Elrose district there are always moose in the vicinity. In fact they are in groups of two and three which I do believe is unusual for Moose. Regarding the reduction in habitat it seems to me they enjoy nibbling on the various cereal grains in the vicinity.

Tom in Denver
April 1, 2015 7:55 am

It is easy for us all to focus only the tactics in this cultural fight. But we must always be mindful of the strategy that is going on with the cultural left. Climate Alarm-ism is simply a means to an ends. The ultimate goal is the destruction of Capitalism, and the installation of global socialistic government instituting world wide wealth redistribution.
The degrading of scientific integrity is merely collateral damage to the left. Just Yesterday Harry Reid proudly admitted that he lied on the Senate floor when he claimed that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes for 10 years. When asked about this, his only comments was “Romney didn’t get elected, did he”
The only way to defeat this Hydra is to shine the light on the heart of their actual goals. When most people see what their really trying to do, they reject it. That is why they have to hide it.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tom in Denver
April 1, 2015 9:56 am

Worse than that is the response of several Democratic talking-heads. When asked about Harry’s statement several agreed with him, implying that (at least in politics) ‘the end justifies the means’. So, dating back to “what the the meaning of is is” it has become totally acceptable, at least in some quarters, to lie when the cause is “just”. Take for example Prof. Gruber.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Joe Crawford
April 1, 2015 2:14 pm

Just for the record because this particular slur is deeply offensive to me and people I love and in the hopes it reminds voters of how despicable the Clintons are (two peas in a pod):
Democrats (devouring their own) used ethnic slurs against presidential candidate Mario Cuomo in 1992:
“… remarks he made implying that Cuomo acts like a Mafioso. … The remarks became public Monday … Clinton … ‘…I didn’t mean any offense by it.'”
{Source: }
Cuomo saw what lay ahead and pulled out of the race.

April 1, 2015 8:02 am

I am sure there is a Faulty Towers quote in there somewhere!

April 1, 2015 8:16 am

Big Green does nt care abt the facts, theycare about scaring people into giving their money over to Big Green.

Reply to  hunter
April 1, 2015 9:40 am

Yes, and then as the quote goes ” the only problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money”…and then they, the, desperate thieves, get physical…the rest is already written in human history.

April 1, 2015 8:18 am

Who keeps funding these idiots. Yesterday it was +18C here in Edmonton. Today it is snowing with wind gusts to 70km, -2C. The little marsh across from me is still frozen, yet the Canada Geese (2) are still in my backyard, quite happily nesting. Can’t wait to see how many little ones in about 3 weeks. Only problem is the geese always return to where they were born. And they mate for life. So I guess I had better get more grain. :):) The mallards are back, as they have been for the last 30+ years. The couple across the road have more jackrabbits. Deer walk down our streets, and yes, moose also. I can sit out on my front porch at night, and hear and see the coyotes. The only problem in this is that the wild life drives my two house cats crazy. Mind you, it was fun, in a weird way, watching momma goose last spring kick the heck out of my oldest cat. So far the cat hasn’t gone near her again. Heh.
Nature is nature. Watch and enjoy it, instead of trying to control/change it. We are not Gods, and Mother Nature can be nasty, but also very nice.

April 1, 2015 8:38 am

What we are seeing is a classic example of too many entities chasing a limited number of customers. I recall an operations research class I took years ago. One example was of 4 service stations on the corners of an intersection. Each station tried to grow by getting more customers. One would cut the gasoline price and he would get lots of new customers. Then another station would see the line at the competition and he would lower the price. So then he would have a line of new customers. This continued from station to station till one went out of business. Then another went broke and quit. Finally all were gone.
Now, I don’t think all the not-for-profit enterprises will go out of business, but with the current economy, there are fewer and fewer people to contribute and we are seeing the first stages of a contraction. Next year or so, some of these enterprises will consolidate. And then more will consolidate.

April 1, 2015 9:01 am

the U.S. Geological Survey projects that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050

Well I project that almost all the polar bears will disappear by 2050, because polar bears don’t typically survive 35 years in the wild. But all those disappeared bears will be replaced by new, younger polar bears. And as a species polar bears will be doing just fine and dandy in 2050.

Winnipeg Boy
April 1, 2015 9:06 am

#5 “Due to climate alarmism, government subsidies are promoting the conversion of prairie potholes into cornfields. That not only threatens breeding habitat, but further depletes regional aquifers.”
I have to give you poor marks on this comment, but i like the article.
The only ‘subsidies’ left in agriculture are for crop insurance. Crop insurance only begins once you have a production history of several years. Some Northern farmers tried corn when the price was >$6/bu due to the drought but it does not do well in pothole country, which is on the Canadian border.
The potholes are full now due to several years of unseasonably wet weather. Some wet spots will attempt to be planted but water goes to the lowest point and in wet years, those areas will remain wetlands whether planted or not. Farmers dont want to waste expensive inputs on land that does not produce. If a spot is constantly a puddle, they place it into the CRP conservation program so that they can be ‘subsidized’ for the wetlands. Minimum commitment is 10 years.
Government subsidies promote farmers’ conservation abilities. If you know a good farmer, they are excellent land stuards and they usually enjoy a good hunt.

April 1, 2015 9:16 am

About the Lancanster Sound subpopulation of polar bears, and the PBSG having “oddly listed this population as declining”, despite data up to 1997 showing growth: Is there data newer than 1997 for the Lancaster Sound subpopulation, like was mentioned for the other subpopulations?
Also, what about the Gulf of Bootha subpopulation, listed as “stable” despite growth in the years before 2000? Is there data showing whether the population grew or not since then?

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
April 1, 2015 9:51 am

I pasted my polar population analyses from a chapter in my book that was current up to 2013. The IUCN/PBSG polar bear status is been recently updated for work done up to 2014. I had checked a few month s ago but the website was being updated so click on each population for their list of survey updates.
Compared to the older list 6 populations are now listed as stable and only 3 declining. They finally updated the Western Hudson Bay population to stable, a few years after it was known ot have rebounded.
I didn’t see any updates for Lancaster Sound or Gulf of Boothia. The Baffin Bay population had been growing along with the Harp Seals but they list it as currently declining despite admitting the abundance is unclear.
They also listed South Beaufort Sea bears but they have been increasing since 2008 as Dr. Crockford discussed at and the earlier decline is limost kely due to bad modeling discussed at

April 1, 2015 9:25 am

@Winnepeg Boy, I agree that most farmers are excellent land stewards. But there have been subsidies to grow biofuels and that attracts “speculators” who do not share native wisdom of those traditional farmers.
Here is a 2013 story in the Washington Post on the subject:
“America’s prairies are shrinking. Spurred on by high commodity prices and a biofuels rush, farmers are digging up grasslands in the northern Plains to plant crops at the quickest pace since the 1930s. While that’s been a boon for farmers, the upheaval could create unexpected problems.
Map showing the percentage of grasslands that were converted into corn or soybean fields between 2006 and 2011. A new study by Christopher Wright and Michael Wimberly of South Dakota State University finds that U.S. farmers converted more than 1.3 million acres of grassland into corn and soybean fields between 2006 and 2011, a period of soaring crop prices and biofuel mandates (right). In states like Iowa and South Dakota, some 5 percent of pasture is turning into cropland each year.”comment image

Reply to  jim Steele
April 1, 2015 5:36 pm

I had a friend who was a radical environmentalist and a biology teacher. He pushed and pushed and pushed that I watch the documentary Food Inc.
I did. I told my friend the film did a fine job exposing the incredible unintended negative consequences in the wake of subsidizing corn, wheat, soy, etc.
And I told him the solution to the myriad problems he was distressed about had a simple solution: eliminate the subsidies.
I think he just wanted me to agree that, yet again, man is evil. He was not at all happy with my problem identification, nor solution.

Reply to  Max Photon
April 1, 2015 11:51 pm

Like any “green” initiative…
… if you take away the subsidies and the mandated use, common sense gets rid of the rest.

James Bull
Reply to  jim Steele
April 1, 2015 10:42 pm

Maybe next year they could look at the threat caused by windmills and the number of birds bats etc that are chopped out of the air by these monstrosities.
James Bull

John B()
April 1, 2015 9:27 am

The waterfowl data look suspiciously like “Hockey Sticks”. Don’t let MANN use them as proxy data

Paul Westhaver
April 1, 2015 9:32 am

Jim Steele,
What a terrific, organized body of work.
Your structure is very appealing to me, ie: Objection – Rebuttal. Almost a Thomism!! Well done.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 1, 2015 4:15 pm

Paul Westhaver- if you haven’t read his book “landscapes and cycles” you would love it. Same style. He is not only clear but supports everything he says. And bonus- it’s extremely interesting.

Retired Engineer Jim
April 1, 2015 9:40 am

Mr Steele,
How dare you use historical and current data to refute future projections of population declines based on models/
\sarc off
Excellent article – well written, weel researched and well organized. Thank you.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Retired Engineer Jim
April 1, 2015 10:14 am

Models? MODELS?? DID — YOU — SAY — MODELS??!!
NWF: Yes, Ms. Moore. We said, “models.” Models of future drought conditions in the region due to global warming project significant declines in Prairie Pothole wetlands–up to 91 percent.
This could lead to a 9-69 percent reduction in the abundance of ducks
… .”
REALITY (a la Jim Steele): MUCH different.
An allegory for how NWF’s models work:
Simulated wildlife activity….

(Timon and Pumba “Lion King” — youtube)
Yeah, it’s ridiculous and silly. IT IS ABOUT CLIMATE MODELS what did you expect?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
April 1, 2015 10:16 am

You’ll notice, the model simulation code writers make an “adjustment”… then things really get out of whack… heh, heh.

April 1, 2015 9:47 am

People see what they expect to see, not what is really there.
This is a key to mind control.
Control what people expect to see, and you control what they see.
Control what people see, and you control what they think.comment image

April 1, 2015 9:57 am

Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
Grants are being endangered by the reality of climate change which is just not happening as expected – which is worse than we thought! Troughers will no longer be able to jet all around the planet to discuss this impending crisis. This has created catastrophic levels of depression. Send money now and get a monthly update from poor grounded researchers. With your help they can continue to tell everyone just how bad it is 😉

April 1, 2015 11:19 am

The first rule of fundraising by these groups…always use a photo of a big-eyed mammal.

April 1, 2015 11:29 am

NWF (and WWF) went off the rails years ago.

Gerald Machnee
April 1, 2015 3:33 pm

The bird group “Audubon” is in the same boat. The did a “study” based on the IPCC report and therefore came up with another faulty report which says birds will lose most of their habitat due to temperature increase. I wrote to them but they will only give a motherhood reply and would not discuss the IPCC report.
Hello Sally,
Thank you for the motherhood response.
However, you do not show any intent to look at the real issue. Climate
is not affecting habitat loss, humans are. I repeat, you are using a
faulty study to create another faulty one.
On 18/11/2014 9:11 AM, Audubon Connect wrote:
> Good morning,
> Thank you for your email and for sharing your view with me.
> Audubon is making climate change a key priority because our science has demonstrated that it poses the greatest threat to birds. Our mission to protect birds and their habitat compels us to act to address this challenge, just as Audubon’s first members took on the plume trade more than one hundred years ago, and just as we pushed for a ban on DDT some decades later.
> Thank you for all you do for birds.
> Sincerely,
> Sally
> Member Services Department
> National Audubon Society
> Hello Gary,
> RE:
> “”Thanks to your dedication and passion, we have a clear idea of how climate will affect birds, and, more important, we are beginning to discover geographic areas where conservation is most needed now to protect birds in the future. “”
> You cannot have a clear idea how climate will affect birds when you based your study on a faulty IPCC Report. The temperatures are not rising anywhere near the projections you used, and there is no MEASUREMENT of how much change is caused by greenhouse gases.
> The MAIN problem for birds is habitat loss and that is not due to climate change.
> For more information I suggest you read sites like:

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
April 1, 2015 4:49 pm

Audubon has made a huge push to focus on climate change. I am working on an essay about the misuse of their models.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  jim Steele
April 2, 2015 9:22 am

Thanks, looking forward to that.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
April 1, 2015 8:23 pm

Audubon’s drawings were all from dead birds which he used as subjects – not sure if he killed them, but I wouldn’t be surprised…

April 1, 2015 4:06 pm

comment image
Looks like a pack of environmentalists with a huge carcass of funding.

Reply to  Max Photon
April 1, 2015 4:54 pm

The whalers are always in a bit of danger as their whale carcasses attract nearly every bear in the South Beaufort Sea region. At times the whalers must shoot a few aggressive ones to protect life and property and it highly likely that the hyped 4 “drowning bears” were shot by whalers in self defense as it happened in this very same area and season when polar bears were swimming ashore to feast on whaling season remains.

April 1, 2015 7:29 pm

The graphs depicting duck numbers is interesting. The first thought is that the graph is clear evidence that ducks prefer warming to cooling. I wonder what is the main cause of the sharp die-backs. There is almost a regularity to the pattern.

Reply to  goldminor
April 1, 2015 8:19 pm

Its hard to say what causes the die backs and each species needs to be looked at individually. That said my first guess would be disease is the major driver. As landscapes were developed, water fowl populations have been squeezed into increasingly restricted refuges over the past decades, and when populations are so highly concentrated diseases spread rapidly. I’ve seen a flock of 30 swans fly in, and then when they took off 2 hours later 5 or 6 were left writhing on the ground from avian cholera. Refuge managers tell me such sightings are common for various species.
Here is a story from the Klamath Falls refuge where I witnessed the swans die.
The water to those refuges is heavily managed, so in drought years when water is rationed to other concerns, the waterfowl death toll usually rises. That’s what makes this 43% increase so amazing within the context of the recent droughts. But that is also why each species needs to be evaluated region by region. La Nina years often cause drought in the southern USA but that stronger HIgh pressure system pushes more rains northward to Canada usually benefitting the prairie pothole region.

April 1, 2015 7:29 pm

Thanks, Dr. Steele.
Your excellent book and your Web articles are much appreciated.
I hope they will inspire better environmental practices, based on local, not faulty IPCC-projected global conditions.

April 1, 2015 10:04 pm

Alas, there are definitely well-founded concerns about North American wildlife but for political and politically-correct reasons, the NWF is lobbying for purported “solutions” that will not address the underlying problems (such as habitat destruction) and can even promote the loss of wildlife (such as windfarms).
Thanks for speaking up, Mr Steele.

April 2, 2015 10:43 am

Radicalization of groups is a natural process that could be modeled.

Half Tide Rock
April 2, 2015 1:03 pm

I think we need a wild life biologist to weigh in on the Moose issue. There is more to this than meets the eye. It seems to me that logging and harvesting trees for firewood opened up large areas of Maine to and Northern New England to White Tailed Deer. (Human induced Habitat Change) Katahdin historically even had a population of caribou. There is a brain worm associated with White Tailed deer that is fatal to Moose and Caribou. The deer moved into the former moose habitat areas. A few years back a friend attempted to reintroduce the Caribou they died quickly and the autopsies showed the culprit was the worm. Even though the deer population is being pushed back by the recovering forests the restocking of Caribou had to be abandoned. We have large deer populations on the coast of Maine but the moose if and when they show up are dying. So this parasite eliminates the competition. Just thinkin’

April 3, 2015 11:52 pm

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Three aspects:
Lies are being published about so-called catastrophic global warming.
Scientific journals are prostituting themselves for political agenda.
The public are continuing to be brainwashed about “global warming” which is insignificant, or “climate change” which is most stupid term to use to scare the public when it really means nothing more than that the climate changes naturally and for many reasons. Nothing concrete to connect it to man’s carbon footprint.
Read and be educated, please!

%d bloggers like this: