December 17, 2017

Radical Maine Animal Rights Activist Seeks Investigation of MDIFW/Advisory Committee

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

John Glowa of South China, Maine, most noted for his off-the-wall advocacy for the protection of all animals (over people), even at the detriment of some animals, has asked Maine Senate President Michael Thibodeau, Maine House Speaker Mark Eves, and Senator Roger Katz, to launch an investigation into the actions of the Legislature’s Committee representing the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). Glowa claims, “the committee is unanimously stacked with consumptive users-hunters, trappers, fishermen or supporters of hunting, trapping and fishing.”

Glowa calls for representation on the Committee by non-consumptive users stating that, “There are NO committee members who advocate on behalf of non-consumptive users and on behalf of non-consumptive use of Maine’s fish and wildlife resources.” I think Mr. Glowa is confusing two distinct and separate issues. The MDIFW manages all wildlife, some of which happens to be game species of which Glowa seems to lose sleep over and the idea that some of Maine’s tax payers “consume” specific, designated game species, as part of a proven model of wildlife management. The only place that the advocacy of “non-consumptive” wildlife may have is when wildlife science calls for reductions or elimination of consumption of a species in order to maintain responsible management of the species in question.

Mr. Glowa, and far too many animal advocates, have lost sight of – or never had it in sight before – the fact that had it not been for the formulation of the North American Model of Wildlife Management, in combination with fish and game departments, funded mostly by sportsmen, some of whom happen to be consumptive users and some non-consumptive users, the complainant wouldn’t have anything to complain about.

Proper game and wildlife management sometimes calls for the reduction of specie populations in order to sustain a healthy proportion of animals in question. Non-consumption has no part in proper scientific management of wildlife. Non-consumptive use is a political term coined in order to promote the radical, post-normal, ideals of animal rights activists and carries with it not an ounce of actual wildlife science and responsible management.

If it so happens that MDIFW, or any fish and game department, goes about it’s management plans in a way that, without putting the species in question at risk, increases their revenue in order to improve upon their management goals, how can any such action be considered NOT in the best interest of Maine taxpayers AND the wildlife?

It should be for these reasons alone that no followers of political, animal rights idealism, should be permitted to participate in decision making about scientific hunting, fishing and trapping management.

Upon examination of the words contained in two letters sent by Glowa to Thibodeau, Eves and Katz, one can find that the author believes that consumptive use of natural resources is not advocating for the resource. On the contrary and it has been proven for several decades now in what is a model of wildlife management that is the envy of the world. Again, this is nothing more than a representation of an individual’s political idealism, and not scientific, views of how tax payers choose to make the best use of their natural resources. In this case, the small amount of “consumptive” use, is a windfall for everyone and should be promoted not destroyed as is being suggested.

In an addendum to the original request for an investigation, Glowa, empty-handed when it comes to wildlife science to support his political views, distorts facts in an attempt to sell others on the misrepresented claim that there are more wildlife watchers who spend more money than do hunters, trappers and fishermen. Glowa states, “wildlife watchers spend some $800 million annually in Maine, far more than is spent by hunters and fishermen combined.” Any use of these numbers is a dishonest representation of the actual data compiled in reference to the subject.

It should be understood by readers that the collective term “wildlife watcher” if formed into “Wildlife Watcher,” meaning an actual group or member(s) of a group who specifically and purposefully go “wildlife watching,” that is, in the exact same fashion as one goes hunting, trapping and/or fishing, then figures from that activity could be derived and used in comparison, i.e comparing apples to apples, etc.

When the surveys are done to compile the information referenced, anybody who said that on any outing in Maine, they saw a wildlife animal, that was registered as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a Wildlife Watcher.

Of the claimed $800 million spent annually on “wildlife watching,” the dishonesty comes in that people did NOT spend $800 million specifically to go watch Maine wildlife. It’s easier to track hunters, trappers and fishermen because they buy licenses, the money of which is used to properly manage healthy game species – a benefit to all Maine people including those who enjoy catching a glimpse of a deer on the way to grandma’s house – of which that “glimpse” gets recorded as “wildlife watching.” Shame, shame.

Perhaps the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Legislative Committee are guilty of some wrongdoing and, more than likely are guilty of corruption at some level – after all it is politics – I don’t see how refusing to place (if that is actually what has happened) non-consumptive users, real or fake, on this committee makes them crooks. In actuality, I would commend the committee for keeping the best interest of scientific wildlife management at the focus of their work and not oiling of some squeaky-wheel, politically-driven, advocate of non-consumptive (anti-hunting, trapping, fishing) resource use.

Normal life, calls for the responsible USE, U-S-E of natural resources. To deny anyone consumptive use of game animals, as part of a proven, scientific program, is advocating for scarcity, which is nothing more than advocating for the destruction life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is the advocacy and promotion of death!

Share