April 22, 2018

Milt Inman’s Whatzit: The Aninga

Some of you will recall that I posted a photograph of Milt Inman’s on this blog asking readers “Whatzit?” Here’s that picture.
Milt Inman Photo

It took a bit but I eventually got a response back from him with an “official” answer as to “Whatzit”. In reply he sent the following picture and a brief explanation.

“It is a water bird that fishes under water and sometimes keeps its body under water and swims with just its neck out of the water!!! It’s called an aninga.
Now You Know “WHATZIT” Milt


Milt Inman Photo

Share

By Executive Order, U.S. President Seizes Full Control of All Assets Private and Governmental

*Scroll for an Update*

While you and I were asleep at the wheel, President Barack Obama, who, since becoming president has chosen repeatedly to bypass Congress and govern by executive order, signed another executive order that effectively gives him, or any other president, the authority to seize and control virtually every aspect of existence away from the citizens of the United States.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness order, as some can image, is disguised as an act to enhance this countries capabilities to protect itself through “National Defense”. It is also being shrouded in claims of “emergencies”, when in fact, no “emergency” is actually required for the president to be able to seize control over people and their assets for the purpose of “National Defense”.

Before I get into the more shocking contents of the Executive Order(EO), let me include the definition of “National Defense” as is outlined in this act:

(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.

National Defense, as the president chooses to define it, is very broad, poorly defined; not as most people might consider the classic definition of national defense.

What is it that this EO gives the president power over?

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

If, while looking through this list, you wonder if it might include some aspect you’re not sure of, trust me it does. I see virtually no stones unturned here. This is a blatant appropriation of the American people and their property.

But let’s not kid ourselves, this power grab includes every imaginable resource available in this country. In addition, this EO grants authority for the confiscation of your property and equipment. If you own a factory, the government has the power to take it over and modify it in any fashion they so chose; all for the purpose of “National Security”. But it doesn’t end there.

Don’t miss the wording of the paragraph that leads into this list of things the government now controls:

(a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense(emboldening is mine)

Note that this is not about executing national defense or what is necessary in time of war or national emergency. This tells us that the president can do this “to promote national defense”, as he deems appropriate. We find more references contained in this EO that tells us this has nothing to do with emergencies and/or disasters.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.(emboldening mine)

All that becomes necessary here is for one or more of the assigned “agencies” to propose a “need” to “promote” national defense and the government can seize assets and equipment and the people to run them.

This EO attempts to hide behind the “National Defense Executive Reserve” as a means of recruiting labor to carry out the mission to “promote National Defense”, in addition to stating each agency has authority to “employ” laborers, it does further go on to state that implementation of the draft or some other form of enslaving labor as deemed needed.

(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;(emboldening mine)

This is what most would believe to be implementation of the “draft”. But, is it? The Selective Service and Secretary of Defense will work on “development of policies”; i.e. policies in place are subject to change under this executive order.

The Secretary of Labor, now has authority to “collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;” Not that our government isn’t already doing this but with a more powerful reach into our privacy, we should be now looking for more probing and demanding requirements by the government in our workplaces, all to “promote national defense”. Look for this “data” to be personal in nature and nothing to do with “national defense”.

In the past, Americans have debated items like the Patriot Act, citing whether or not it is constitutional to cede our God-given rights under the guise of national security. Of course the Patriot Act was conveniently implemented and subsequently renewed after the events of 9/11. People were led to believe we were in a crisis threat from “terrorists” and such privacy intrusion and destruction of rights were necessary and so we gave those rights away.

This Executive Order goes far, far beyond anything found in the Patriot Act. To bury one’s head in the sand and claim this is all preventive maintenance has no means of sustaining scrutiny. This EO doesn’t even leave open debate as to whether any or all of it is necessary for the protection of this country. While it mentions emergencies, it just as casually connects all actions in this order in the context of non emergencies. All that is necessary is for the president to declare an undefined, unspecified need.

But let’s not omit one extremely important aspect of the entire thing. I suppose some would find reason to argue whether or not my interpretation of the EO applies only to emergencies rather than non emergencies but what is not specifically defined in this order is what must be in place in order to implement this National Defense Resources Preparedness. Each department or agencies named by the president has the authority to declare a need. This declaration is supposed to work its way through channels ultimately to the president’s desk.

Again, we can argue as to whether or not any administration should have carte blanche authority to implement such an order but shouldn’t implementation require a certain set criteria that first must be met? Better yet, how can America even have in existence such an order that ultimately destroys what is left of the Constitution?

This Executive Order declares war upon the citizens of the United States and enacts slavery. There is something seriously wrong with the presidential privilege of executive order drafting, when something of this magnitude is foisted onto a sleeping citizenry.

And what kind of human being would sign it? Surely not an American.

*Update* March 19, 2012, 12:10 p.m.

As you will find if you take the time to look around at other news articles and blogs across the Internet, you’ll find the real problem as to why America finds itself in a situation in which with little abuse and misguided agendas, such executive orders can be implemented.

I turn to an article in the World Net Daily, in which it states:

As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

In our own ignorance, much due to the brainwashing of our nation, we have been led like sheep to believe that many wrongs make a right. This is why we no longer abide by the Constitution. Because a bill enacted in 1950 and subsequent executive orders by Presidents Eisenhower, Clinton and Bush, were enacted and signed, is not a case to support that any of the acts were constitutional.

The WND article claims that there is no difference in the content of Obama’s executive order compared to Clinton’s and that it is only to bring it up to date with governmental organization. Both of these claims fly in the face of honesty; one that there should never have been any ruling in this nation that gives power to the president to become a tyrant dictator while enslaving the people, and second, that the only changes in the order were “boilerplate” housekeeping.

Tom Remington

Share

Open Thread – March 19, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments, and information about issues not directly related to the content of articles published on this blog. Thank you.

Share

Open Thread – March 17, 2012

Please use this thread to post your ideas, comments and information concerning issues not relevant to articles published on this blog. Thank you!

Share

Ain’t We Just Wicked Smart With Our Technology?

Share

Open Thread – March 16, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not directly related to the content of articles published on this website. Thank you!

Share

Maine DIF&W Lacks Mission Statement and Commitment For Harvest Opportunities

It’s nearly impossible for any establishment to achieve success without a distinct and clear vision of what their mission is. On the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) website, there is no “mission statement”. If one gleans through the many pages, they might be able to pick up certain statements that would tend to make them think certain things about what it is that MDIFW is aiming to do. However, is that clear and concise planning that guarantees success?

An example of what I mean can be found on the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources web pages. While it matters not to me or perhaps to you whether we agree with the information contained on those pages, at least there is a brief mission statement and stated goals and objectives. This gives the department written goals and objectives to strive for, provides that same information to the citizens of Utah and creates a written benchmark in which citizens can keep the department on task by a continual reference to those goals and objectives. This is basic.

Some states, like Montana, and approximately 12 other states, have gone so far as to amend their constitutions in order to protect the right to hunt and fish. Montana’s amendment reads: Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.”

While it’s impressive that Montana has such an amendment, read carefully exactly what it protects concerning hunting. It protects “opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals”, nothing more and nothing less. As citizens wishing to fully protect that heritage, wouldn’t it make sense to mandate fish and game departments to manage wild fish and wild game animals for surplus harvest for all citizens, along with protecting the opportunity?

This is the transformation that has taken place over the years by fish and game departments, hijacked by state governments, along with non governmental, environmental, and animal rights groups, to turn these departments into wildlife protection agencies. While most states’ fish and wildlife departments toss about the use of “opportunities” to hunt and fish, no longer do we find departments willing to state that their goals are to manage game animals for surplus harvest.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) lacks a clearly written, well defined and accessible mission statement, complete with goals and objects. It also has no constitutional guarantee to provide surplus game or protection of “opportunities” and spends much of its time not only being manipulated by social pressures rather than using science, it goes out of its way to seek out and involve the public in setting management and population goals based on what the public will tolerate.

Evidently fed up with the bitching and complaining from hunters and associated industries, Maine crafted its “Maine’s Game Plan for Deer“. Prompted by a dying population of whitetail deer in Northern, Western and Eastern Maine, this plan was devised believing it would be the road map to recovery. What the plan lacks, once again is what I, personally, would consider clear goals and because of this, leaves sportsmen unsure of what exactly is going to take place, what the specific plan and achieved goals will be, specifically population objectives, and exactly who the Maine’s Game Plan for Deer was written for.

As a hunter, one would wish to see a statement from the Governor or at least the MDIFW Commissioner, stating that the objective of Maine’s Game Plan for Deer is to restore surplus populations of deer in all Wildlife Management Districts(WMD) for harvest opportunities. This would tell the sportsmen, who by the way are paying the bills at MDIFW, that the department intends to grow deer to levels that will give them surplus deer to harvest. Such a statement does no exist in Maine’s Game Plan for Deer.

As second choice, hunters might be satisfied for now if they could read or hear from the same sources that Maine’s Game Plan for Deer sets goals to rebuild deer populations that would increase hunting opportunities. That didn’t happen either.

As a matter of fact any wording or written statements that provide hunters any kind of reasonable assurances are quite lacking. The best I could come up with I’ll share below.

The MDIFW, after releasing Maine’s Game Plan for Deer, dedicated an entire newsletter to publish its new plan and discuss the whys and wherefores. Surely here hunters would find assurances.

In the newsletter, the following statement can be found:

While we’ve all been impressed by healthy deer populations, including trophy bucks, in parts of Maine, we’ve been concerned about low deer numbers in northern, eastern and western Maine. The population is below our publicly derived goals, and below the desires and expectations of hunters, guides and outfitters, rural Maine business owners, and those who enjoy watching deer.(emboldening added)

What does “publicly derived goals” mean? I can guarantee you it doesn’t mean more, better and guaranteed opportunities to harvest your deer to feed you family next fall. Further research shows us that Maine’s Game Plan for Deer is broken down into five elements.

One might also think that while publishing Maine’s Game Plan for Deer, an opportunity would be seized upon by MDIFW to assure the hunters, again those paying the bills, that this plan is for them (we are the ones who bitched and complained) and the purpose is specifically to grow deer to hunt. Instead, the preamble is about deflecting any notion of placing any blame for an abysmal deer herd away from MDIFW by stating: “there are several inter-related factors that are suppressing deer numbers” and the list does not include any slight hint of poor management. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Woodcock tells readers, “I’ve heard hunters claim that mismanagement on the part of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife caused the numbers to go down. That’s not true.” The dog ate my homework? Why does MDIFW exempt itself from blame?

So, if Maine drafts a Maine’s Game Plan for Deer, and in it there is nowhere that it even assures hunters that the plan is to grow surplus deer for harvest, then why are we paying for this and supporting it?

Element Two of Maine’s Game Plan for Deer is titled: Deer Population Management. Here’s what’s listed:
Strategies:
• conduct research to
refine our current deer population model
• better understand interactions between deer,
habitat, and predation
• understand how moose management may affect
our ability to increase the deer population
• work with landowners to eliminate deer mortality
where winter feeding makes deer susceptible to
vehicle collisions
• increase law enforcement efforts to target illegal killing
of deer
• work with the legislature to increase penalties for
illegal killing of deer
(emboldening added)

If I wanted to write a book, I would address all of these issues. However, a strategy to “refine our current deer population model” needs attention because, after all, isn’t this what Maine’s Game Plan for Deer is about? How does MDIFW plan to “refine” this and what’s more, what IS the current deer population model? Oh, yeah! I recall. Maybe the statement made the other day that was published in the Bangor Daily News from Maine’s head deer biologist tells us what Maine’s “current deer population model” is.

We realize, more than anything, that moose are valued economically for viewing as well as hunting opportunity as well as being on the landscape and just the aesthetic of moose,” Kantar said. “We balance all those things. That’s our job.”

Just replace the word “moose” with “deer” and that probably fits aptly.

But I think Element Four should give us a better indication why Maine’s Game Plan for Deer is not a plan to increase your odds of bagging a deer next year or any year into the foreseeable future. It’s a plan to appease the public and in particular environmental and animal rights groups. Element Four is: “Deer Planning and Public Involvement”.

MDIF&W has employed public participation to develop management goals and objectives for many species of Maine’s wildlife, including deer. The Department has conducted species planning since the early 1970s and has refined and expanded the process with each planning update. Most recently, the 1999 Big Game Working Group set the Department’s deer population management objectives for 2000-2015.

Deer are a public resource, but live on private lands. For any wildlife management effort to be successful, especially those occurring on private property [including deer wintering area management] society must determine: 1] the wildlife management result it desires, 2] the effort that it will undertake or require to achieve the result, and 3] to achieve the result, how much of the effort / cost will be borne by the private landowner and what, if any, society will bear.

You may view this statement in much the same way as does MDIFW, the governor’s office, the Maine Legislature and probably the majority of the Maine population. You agree with it and/or find no fault with it. However, it’s this mind set of “we’ve been doing this “since the early 1970s” that people think because they have it must be right. It’s not! It’s wrong on every count. It’s why there are no more deer! Why is this difficult to comprehend?

Deer is a resource that must be managed scientifically. We are now at a point where our fish and game departments allow the dictates of social pressures, and yes, even the social perversions of extremism, to directly influence how it manages wildlife. We, as yet anyway, don’t directly control our human populations based on what society dictates, do we? Please say no.

As a hunter, here I sit trying to figure out how we have gotten to this point. Since I was ten years old, I have invested in the Maine fish and game department. I didn’t do it because I had nothing better to do with my money. I did it because I like to hunt and fish. I did it because I was told that coughing up money each year for a license was a good thing and that money would be used to make sure that I had fish and game to harvest when I was hungry. This is my investment and your investment. We are still paying for it and we have nothing to say about it while the environmentalists and animal rights advocates have infiltrated our fish and game departments and all through state governments. And they pay nothing for the privilege of telling MDIFW what it will and will not do. There once was a time when sportsmen had ownership and the influence. No more, and that’s very sad as well as a troubling commentary for our future.

Maine’s Game Plan for Deer, like the hapless MDIFW without goals, without strategies, without a mission, is not a plan that will promise to increase your hunting and harvest opportunities. The Plan makes no such promise, while only stating it will work to increase deer populations that fit social demands only. With a department that protects the predators that destroy the deer, you might get some limited opportunities to hunt deer but it certainly is not what most hunters have in mind…..or at least used to.

Tom Remington

Share

Is Maine’s Whitetail Deer Age Structure Changing?

*Editor’s Note* The graph and information below was crafted by contributor Richard Paradis from information provided by me in addition to his own information.

One of the most telling events that can occur in a deer herd is a change in age structure. In brief, age structure is a dynamic investigation into the complete breakdown of how many deer make up specific age categories. We are often discussing the relationship between male and female deer as well as the number of fawns (new born) in relation to the number of adult female deer. Seldom, or at least not to the same degree, is the age structure of a deer herd discussed.

A well educated and experienced biologist, providing they have been able to collect the necessary data, can tell what percentage of a deer herd makes up fawns; up to 1 and 1/2 years of age, young deer; 1 and 1/2 to 3 and 1/2 years old, and mature deer; over 3 and 1/2 years. The same biologist should know, according to the geographic information, as well as available habitat, etc. what the age structure of a herd should be in order to classify it as healthy and to make determinations as to what any harvest should be like for the upcoming hunting season based on herd structure and trends.

There can also be certain movements in that age structure that can indicate to the biologist that something is changing, alerting them to the need to investigate what those influences might be and make changes to the management strategies to maintain a viable and healthy herd.

Some people believe that in order to destroy a deer herd, something has to kill off all the deer, adults included. This is not entirely true. In theory, if there were never any new born deer to add to the herd and in combination with all other mortality to the deer herd, how long do you think it would be before the deer herd disappeared? Not long.

In this kind of scenario, an examination of the age structure might alert us to what could be happening. For the sake of discussion, let’s say a healthy deer herd looked something like this: fawn recruitment, that is the percentage of new born fawns that live to see their first winter, is 20% of the herd; Young deer, 1 and 1/2 – 3 and 1/2 years 50% and mature deer 30%.

In an attempt to keep this as simple as possible, let’s say that with the above situation of 20%, 50% and 30%, the average age of the deer is 2.9 years. If you played around with those percentages you would soon discover that it takes quite a dramatic change in those percentages to effect a noticeable move in the average deers’ age.

As an example, let’s say that in one year, the fawn recruitment was wiped out, i.e. 0%. That would increase the average age of the deer to approximately 3.3 years (I divided the 20% loss evenly between the remaining two age groups). Notice that what appears to be a rather small change in average age (less that 1/2 year), a complete loss of fawn recruitment is a devastating event. If we carried that out for a few years, where fawn recruitment remained at 0%, we can see that the age of the deer herd gets older and older. Once this is discovered, trust me, I think the deer herd is in trouble.

As far as Maine’s age structure for deer, I don’t have the kind of data necessary to calculate age structure and I’m not sure whether the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) does either. I am assuming they must. What I did do is to extract some of the data that MDIFW provides in their deer harvest information to use to see if there can be determined any trends in age structure.

All that is available on the MDIFW website is harvest information beginning in 2005 through 2011. In each of these reports, MDIFW provides in their harvest data the percentage of take based on the same age classifications I have used above, i.e. fawn, young and mature. I pulled out of these reports those percentages and listed them by year. Mr. Paradis was kind enough to compile them into a graph for better visual comparison.

However, bear in mind a few things. The data extracted may not be a clear representation of the entire herd of Maine’s deer. This is harvest data only and there are restrictions to the sex and age of what deer can be taken and in what geographical regions. Therefore, the only way we can make good comparisons is with the ability to compare those items that remain constant.

In theory, if we had for these seven years the same number of “Any-Deer Permits” in all the same regions, this harvest data would be a bit more accurate and reliable for my purposes. However, the changes in the issuing of Any-Deer Permits did not change drastically statewide until 2009 when Any-Deer Permits were halted in Northern, Western and Downeast Maine and again for the 2011 deer hunting season. As such, I’m not sure exactly how to use harvest data for 2010 and 2011 in comparison with all previous years.

From the graphs and information below, you can clearly see the percentage of Young and Mature deer taken for each of the years listed, 2005-2011. Over the span of the seven years, the average percentage of Young deer harvested is 46.4% and for Mature deer, 20.4%.

Not really knowing how to handle the 2010, 2011 harvest data, one could conclude that there is a slight trend upward in the age structure according to harvest information. Is this something to be concerned about. I would think so. Is MDIFW keeping an eye on this data and any trends? I certainly hope so. If the age structure of Maine’s deer herd is on the increase, there has to be a reason, which is generally related directly to fawn recruitment. Without good fawn recruitment a deer herd is doomed. Depending upon the severity of that loss, will determine how quickly a herd becomes decimated.

Share

Open Thread – March 15, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not relevant to the content of articles published on this web site. Thank you.

Share

The Gun Addict Song

Share