August 19, 2017

Open Thread – 19th Day, 8th Month, 2017

FREE SPEECH?

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

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

One Bear, Two Bears, Three Bears, Four

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has yet to publish black bear harvest data on their website. So far, this is the second longest it has taken the Department to count bears. How long does it take to count bears? Oh, yeah! It’s the teeth that slows them down. RIGHT!

Share

CEO Resignations From Trump Business Councils Reveal Leaders’ “True Colors”

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Liberal Grandstanding and Cronyism Seen as Undermining Efforts to Grow Economy, Create Jobs

Washington, DC – Recent CEO resignations from the Trump Administration’s business councils are being criticized by the nation’s leading conservative shareholder activists as being short-sighted and political.  The Free Enterprise Project  (FEP) says the resignations, which prompted the disbanding of the councils, highlight the political agendas that now guide corporate behavior and expose companies to increased pressure from radical activists.

FEP is a program of The National Center for Public Policy Research.  It has participated in over 100 corporate shareholder meetings since 2014.

“By fleeing President Trump’s advisory councils, these CEOs showed their true colors. CEOs such as Merck’s Kenneth Frazier, Intel’s Brian Krzanich and Disney’s Bob Iger – who left the advisory council in June – are well-known liberals and likely opposed to much of President Trump’s free enterprise agenda.  The events in Charlottesville are likely just a convenient excuse for them to leave, and they are making political statements rather than business decisions in doing so,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq.  “Under eight years of President Obama’s policy of picking winners and losers and running the government as a crony statist regime, these corporate leaders became accustomed to working with Washington to set the rules to benefit their respective bottom lines and crowd out competition.  It’s not a coincidence that all of these companies have seen their stock prices drop since January.”

Danhof cited Merck’s Frazier in particular: “Under Frazier’s leadership, Merck has pushed and promoted ObamaCare to benefit its own bottom line even as the law’s market-distorting mechanisms cripple millions of Americans.  One of President Trump’s top priorities is to repeal and replace ObamaCare with a more patient-centric approach to health care.  It seems Frazier prefers the ObamaCare model that provides handouts to industry.  The American people deserve better, President Trump knows that and that had to be a point of contention between them.”

Horace Cooper, a member of the National Center’s board of directors who has represented FEP at shareholder meetings, called out CEOs for the obvious political nature of their resignations.  He said: “The decision by Kenneth Frazier and the others to resign from the White House’s American Manufacturing Council represents the triumph of politics over policy.  It is very disappointing when our nation’s corporate leaders have been given an opportunity to work with the federal government to encourage innovation and investment but instead appear more interested in political correctness.”

Cooper added: “These corporate executives represent the livelihoods of millions of Americans.  Their selfish decision to effectively become Antifa warriors means that the important issues of deregulation and tax reform – critical to job growth and improving household budgets – will be pushed to the back of the bus.  CEOs are hired to improve and expand their companies’ value and to provide needed services and products to consumers. Federal policy is critical to that effort. Abandoning this rare opportunity to work directly with the White House in order to pursue left-wing politics harms not only the corporations, but also the Americans – black, white and brown – who work for them and rely upon their products and services.”

Commenting on the intentions of the White House’s councils, Danhof noted: “President Trump deserves credit for trying to put together a group of business leaders that included CEOs from across the political spectrum. Whether in politics, academia or business, many liberal leaders are completely unwilling to listen to opposing points of view.  In the end, Trump’s efforts at bipartisan outreach were met with liberal grandstanding and defections that undermined the advisory councils’ goals.  He was left with no choice but to disband them.”

Danhof further pointed out: “Another element at play here is the power of corporate activism.  Liberal investment organizations have long recognized the power of shareholder engagement and the ability to influence corporate decision-makers.  From the get-go, all the CEOs appointed to President Trump’s advisory councils faced heavy pressure from leftist agitators to resign.  The CEOs who caved to this pressure – whether they used the events in Charlottesville or President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord as their excuse – may think they are appeasing the liberal mob.  They are not.  Because they have shown a willingness to do the left’s bidding, the activists will return asking for even a greater pound of flesh.”

Share

Open Thread – 18th Day, 8th Month, 2017

Is There Talk of Tearing Down This Abomination?

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 – 17 Day, 8th Month, 2017

The U.S. is Insanely Spinning Out of Control. If You Can’t See It, You Are Insane and Spinning Out of Control

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

Scientific Game Management Trumped by Progressive Totalitarianism

Of the approximately 15,000 grizzlies in British Columbia, about 250 are killed by hunters annually, according to government figures.

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson characterized that level of hunting as “sustainable” in an interview with the CBC.

However, he says the decision to end trophy hunting is “not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Open Thread – 16 Day, 8th Month, 2017

John 3:31 – He that is come from on high, is above all: he that is of the earth, is of the earth, and speaketh of the earth: he that is come from heaven, is above all.

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, 8th Month, 2017

FAKE!

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

When Lawmakers Strengthen Laws Against Hunters and Do Worse Crimes and Get Away With It Themselves

George Smith writes to clarify a new anti-baiting law for deer. Under current circumstances, I do not favor hunting deer over bait, although, like bear management, I think the decision should be based on the need to more effectively control the population of deer, of which Maine does not have a problem with, and that decision should be left in the hands of the commissioner. Why in one instance the commissioner knows best and in another he doesn’t?

According to Smith, a new law,  An Act To Increase the Penalties for Hunting Deer over Bait, was passed in the Maine Legislature that upon a second offense of baiting deer a person’s privilege to purchase a hunting license is revoked for the remainder of that person’s life.

Isn’t this just a bit draconian? In what direction is this Maine Legislature headed? We learned recently of the Legislature passing a bill that directs greater punishment against hunters as a group than any other group or individual in Maine. That is unlawful, and yet it passed and appears as though I am the only one who sees the new law for what it is. Maybe that’s why the Legislature gets away with their fascism.

And now we see the liberal, progressive mindset, that believes tougher laws stop criminals…or is it something else? Perhaps this is part of the brainwashing rearing its ugly head of the brainwashed masses targeting hunting simply because they have been taught to dislike and disapprove of the activity and will do what they can, outwardly and covertly to end the practice.

But that’s just one aspect of totalitarianism run amok. When you consider that at least one of the lawmakers, who is part of the whole Maine Legislative body, committed the crime of threatening the president and displayed his true colors as a bigoted, hate-filled, filthy-mouthed pervert, walks away after offering some kind of fake apology. Why doesn’t he lose his privilege to serve his state and country for life? Who wants a filthy hate-monger representing them anyway? But he keeps his job and can vote on and craft draconian laws like the one we see here.

Evidently, Maine is no different than any other state. Lawmakers, like all politicians, realize at some point in their careers that they are above the law and that the laws they make as fascists, to please the totalitarians for their votes, do not pertain to them. And so, Maine, like so many other places, is headed in the wrong direction.

There once was a day when any law was crafted around the seriousness of the crime. In this case it appears that it is more serious to put out some food for a deer than it is to threaten the life of the president. And in the other case, hunters are to receive greater punishment than any other group or individual.

Somebody’s got their heads inserted deeply where the sun doesn’t shine. And evidently we like it!

Share