January 23, 2019

Open Thread – 21st Day, 1st Month, 2019

They Don’t Even Know What a Lie Is!

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website.

Share

Open Thread – 19th Day, 1st Month, 2019

Your Choice, Your Future

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

Maine: All Aboard for the IFW Commissioner Cocoa-Puff Train?

Golly gee whiz! Seems everyone is all on board for the governor-elect’s nomination of Judy Camuso as the new commissioner of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) – that is all except those who want to end bear hunting…and hunting, trapping, and fishing in general.

Up front let me say, I honestly do not know enough about the former head of the Division of Wildlife for MDIFW to make an intelligent decision for or against her nomination to head up that department. And if that statement doesn’t make any sense to some, let me just say I’m neither for nor against.

I am, however, a bit more of an independent thinker than some. Earlier I wrote about how I mostly believed that when the Wildlife Director Camuso became the quasi-mouthpiece for MDIFW in discussions involving the environmentalist’s second referendum to end bear hunting, she assumed that position more than likely because commissioner Chandler Woodcock asked her to. She may have also eagerly volunteered. I just don’t know and before her approval, I think all of us deserve to know.

So what does that mean? Who knows. It may mean nothing or it may mean everything. When the candidate for the commissioner’s chair says she won’t talk until after the nomination and selection process, how are any of us supposed to know whether the boot fits on the left or right foot?

What concerns me are those who point blank support Camuso’s nomination because she was that mouthpiece. Is it that people just don’t get it or are they so shallow-thinking they believe 100% that the items she appeared to support as the MDIFW’s mouthpiece are her own beliefs? Maybe they are maybe they are not. How many times in political history have people supported one person only later to find out they were wolves in sheep’s clothing? Too numerous to try to mention.

We may not find out for sure until it’s too late.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), head of the Maine Guides Association, and other outdoor writers have come out “all in” for Camuso’s selection. Probably some of these individuals and groups know a lot more about Camuso’s political ideology and how heavily engrained in Voodoo Science and Romance Biology she is than I am. If so, they seemed quite tight lipped about it.

One such outdoor writer who I am a strong supporter of, in his recent article stated that he thought supporting Camuso was a good idea. But perhaps the major reason he gave for that support isn’t the best one. He wrote: “Because Camuso was a strong and effective advocate for the game management value of recreational bear hunting during the controversial bear referendum, her appointment, however,will no doubt be opposed by the anti-bear hunting faction. For most of us in the sporting community, her role in that debate is reason alone to support her appointment with vigor.”

Is it reason enough, and “with vigor?”

Evidently.

Historically we see where voters cast a ballot for someone for similar reasons only to discover the error of their ways later on. As well, think of some of the recent nominations made by so-called “conservative” presidents to the Supreme Court, i.e. Souter and Kennedy (Bush and Reagan). (This is where I insert: BUT DON’T GO LOOK!)

Let me repeat, I am neither for nor against the nomination of Judy Camuso. As I said, I don’t know enough about her to know whether she will be a good commissioner. One thing is certain, I would want her in my employment because we do know that she was faithful in being Chandler Woodcock’s (Governor’s?) mouthpiece. If she is commissioner, will she exemplify the same management practices or will, as the appointment of a pretty left-wing democrat governor, go “all in” for Voodoo Science and Romance Biology?

For my dollar, I would rather base any decision about this appointment on a whole lot more than the fact that she is at least good at doing what her boss told her to do.

I wish others, instead of jumping in feet first and remaining submerged, would demand a lot more answers to certain questions rather than make assumptions…”with vigor.”

Don’t regret your support. Do your homework. She could be in charge for 8 years…8 very long years, perhaps.

Share

When Deer Management Seems Stupid

According to an article published at the Bangor Daily News website, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) are in the fifth year of a deer collaring study. Most of us know that MDIFW has been extremely secretive about the study and any results they have received and collected from this effort.

The article states the following: “At this point, Bieber is still in the data-gathering phase of the study, which has been aided by the cooperation of the University of Maine, the University of New Brunswick, J.D. Irving Ltd., the Passamaquoddy Nation and the Quality Deer Management Association.

He looks forward to a time when the department can use the data that is being collected to formulate management decisions. To date, the data that has been gathered in the GPS study has not been utilized in management efforts.

“Every year when we allocate for [any-deer] permits, we do make adjustments based on winter severity. It’ll be nice to be able to look back on what we’ve done in the past and see if those decisions were sound. And if not, we’ll be able to adjust according to the data that we have now,” Bieber said.”

Does this make much of sense? Why would the gathering of data for at least 4 years be disregarded in any deer management decisions? The last paragraph says that when the MDIFW allocates “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) they make adjustments based on “winter severity.” And yet this study is mostly aimed at determining the affects of winter severity as well as other mortality causes.

This past deer hunting season, the state allocated a record number of ADPs, and now we are learning the decision to do so was NOT based at all on any data obtained over the past 4 years from their study on the effects of winter severity? Why does that not make much sense at all?

For those who spend a great deal of time studying and following such things as deer management, it’s easy to determine that management decisions made at the department level run a minimum of three years behind actual events taking place on the ground. This effort not only substantiates that claim but extends that fault out to at least five years. Isn’t that one of the biggest problems with game management? Of course it is. And yet, the MDIFW has at least four years of winter severity data on whitetail deer and according to Maine’s head deer biologist, none of that data is being used and was not used in deciding to allot a record number of ADPs for last deer hunting season.

We live in an era of instant information availability. How many decades has it taken the MDIFW to take advantage of this reality to finally put together a digital, online tagging system that gives managers instant data? And now, managers are receiving real time data from their collaring study and for at least four years are not using the data. How many decades will it take at the conclusion of this study before any of that data will be implemented into management decisions?

Perhaps all of the decisions made for managing deer are based solely on social demands with no consideration for scientific data. If so, why doesn’t MDIFW stop wasting their time and our money with senseless “studies?”

Share

Open Thread – 17th Day, 1st Month, 2019

A = Artificial = MAN MADE. Get it? I Didn’t Think so.

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

Infringe Did and Still Does Mean “INFRINGE”

Everyday is the season to infringe upon the Second Amendment. It never ceases and newly-elected politicians love to jump on the totalitarian gunboats, armed for bear, gunning (no real pun intended) for any chance they might get to further infringe (destroy) the Second Amendment. The current political season is no different than others.

The far Left’s staging of events to instill fear, hatred, and anger in the masses have set the stage they hope will carry them over the threshold (that threshold being private gun ownership) that will win them a victory that will end in defeat for all…just you wait and see. But will we even be able to recognize such defeat?

Back in January of 2016 I wrote an article about how Americans consider the Second Amendment to be essentially the only right, inalienable or constitutional depending on how you choose to view it, that is worthy of complete and unrestricted infringement. They don’t necessarily see all the other “rights” in the same way. Surely destruction of those rights is just as potentially dangerous as keeping and bearing arms – if only honesty could admit that.

Of course the original words of the Second Amendment state that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

It has always been argued, never with much conviction or honesty, that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment they didn’t mean that citizens, i.e. the people (small “p”), had a right to arm themselves and/or to keep arms in their possession.

An honest assessment of the intent of the the Second Amendment has been made clear through endless examination of historic documents. To support the historic significance of the right of the people (small “p”) to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Supreme Court, in it’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, declared that the Second Amendment did guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to the people (small “p”).

Of course the downside to the Heller decision is that the majority opinion, given by the late (probably murdered) Justice Antonin Scalia, said nothing about “reasonable restrictions” or infringements to the Second Amendment. And so, even though the Supreme Court ruled that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, there has never been any ruling to determine if any “infringements” can be levied on this right, even though the Second Amendment clearly is written that the right shall NEVER be infringed. What is it here that we are not getting? Therefore, the infringement battle train continues to roll and, no doubt, will never end.

In part of the honest examination of the historic facts that drove the Second Amendment creation, I am going to look at and share with readers the etymology (origins) of two words found in the Second Amendment – “arms” and “infringed.”

Let’s start with “arms.” According to Etymonline.com, since around 1300 a.d. the root word for “arms” meant weapon. This root definition has never really changed. In examining the etymology of many words, over the span of history, the meanings of words change, and sometimes drastically. In this case arms still mean weapons…period.

Argument might be made in this research that the use of the word “arms” may have referred to “military” weapons. I realize that in some cases those who have chosen to use the history of words in their defense of the claim that the Second Amendment applied to “militias” and not the general public, too much history exists that proves the intent of the Founders was to give the people (small “p”) the right to keep and bear arms.

If one is willing to accept that historic research as a true fact, then further argument could be made that the Second Amendment should not restrict that right by prohibiting “military” weapons from those which can be kept and bared.

Regardless, there is no mistaking that when the Founding Fathers used the word “arms” it clearly meant weapons, arms, military tools. They understood the importance of a means to deter a tyrannical government. I wonder if they envisioned a tyrannical people (small “p”)?

The second word to examine is “infringed.” Like the word “arms”, since its creation, infringe has always meant what we today consider the meaning of infringe to be.

Once again, if we look at Etymonline.com, we see that since the 15th century, use of the root word meaning infringe, i.e. “enfrangen,” to violate, or from Latin, “infringere,” damage, break, has never changed in any real meaningful way

When the Founding Fathers selected the two words, “arms” and “infringe,” wasn’t it exactly clear that they were talking about “weapons” and the popular definition of infringe to mean that this right shall NEVER BE violated, damaged, or broken?

Why then do we brainwashed Americans insist on infringing upon this right? Even those claiming to hold dear the Constitution, often claiming how all others tread on it and ignore it, and yet these same mindless folks work tirelessly day in and day out to destroy the Second Amendment, some thinking they are saving it by infringing upon it?

Regardless of what can be presented as evidence, I hold out no hope that the people (small “p”) will ever understand that they are working toward their own destruction.

Oh, what have we done, and what are we doing?

Share

Open Thread – 16th Day, 1st Month, 2019

Proof is Denial!

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

Open Thread – 15th Day, 1st Month, 2019

At Best, POND SCUM!

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share

There’s More To Managing Game Than Technology

David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, writes a very interesting and compelling article that is published in the Kennebec Journal and is found at CentralMaine.com.

In his article he suggests how the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) can use their new technology of digital tagging of game to better manage turkeys. He brings out many good points, explaining that the management of wild turkeys is mostly a best-guess monstrosity of hoping and wishing. “IF&W describes their turkey management goals as very conservative and based on best-guess population estimates.”

“As these population attributes are being refined, it is time for the department to develop a more flexible and adaptive harvest management system for wild turkeys.”

What Trahan is proactively suggesting is that there are far more turkeys that are suffering and dying from disease and starvation each year that instead of going to waste should be made available for resource harvest and utilization. In other words, it’s time to increase the bag limits and lengths of season to accomplish this task and that MDIFW can use the “technology” to accurately monitor the harvest of turkeys in Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) and close the season when harvest goals have been reached. This is common sense game management…that is when managers have a better than “best-guess management goals.”

Trahan writes: “With the new tagging technology and the department’s long-established wildlife management units, IF&W should be able to heavily crop over-abundant populations while also protecting others. And they can monitor the progress of turkey harvests on a daily basis, if they so desire.”

He also suggests the following management model: “In practice, IF&W would issue fall turkey tags based on harvest quotas for each district. Hunters would be capped at eight birds a year — two male birds in the spring and six turkeys of either sex in the fall. There would also be a provision for the department to exceed this individual limit if it were not achieving adequate harvesting rates.”

The only question I might have is are there enough turkey hunters, even with the new bag limits, to accomplish the goals of responsible turkey management.?

I had one reader answer my question this way: “Maybe you don’t need as many hunters if the bag limit is increased.  A greater bag limit may increase the number of hunters both residents and non-residents, Also – manage it like the special deer hunt – after ya got your deer you can go get another deer permit.”

Maybe. Maybe not! However, the management model suggested would be difficult to abuse and end up with terrible results that might be a danger to the turkeys themselves. If MDIFW was closely monitoring the harvest of turkeys in all the WMDs, keeping a close eye on harvest goals per WMD, along with the legal flexibility to modify seasons and bag limits as necessary to remain within practical, and sensible, scientific turkey management, what could go wrong?

Thank you David and SAM’s suggestions for improving on Maine’s turkey management and harvest goals.

Surely something positive must be done.

Share

Open Thread – 14th Day, 1st Month, 2019

Dems Party in Puerto Rico – WHAT SHUTDOWN? ALL WASHINGTON SWINE!

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, information, and comments about issues not covered in articles published on this website. Thank you.

Share