August 12, 2020

Open Thread – April 5, 2012

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

Share

Maine Fish and Game Commissioner Devises Three Fish Groups

I’m sure there are some readers who remember the Dean Martin Roasts. For those that do, perhaps you will even recall Red Buttons’ comedic act during those roasts. Buttons always came across as one holding a grudge, his most famous line being: “I never got a dinner”, as he lamented through the process of who was getting roasted and why. While all the attention was supposed to be bestowed upon the roastee, Buttons would always bemoan: “I never got a dinner”.

Perhaps some will see this article as bemoaning. I don’t, as I find nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious, raising questions and creating discourse in outdoor matters. Having said that, George Smith, independent writer and former executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, wrote on his blog site on Monday, April 2, 2012, that Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) Commissioner Chandler Woodcock “Chooses Three Fisheries Groups”.

Mr. Smith points out that it appears the members of the three groups “provide a wide diversity of thought.” I would concur but that is not my bone of contention, save one. Smith also makes this comment: “Chandler [Woodcock] is making fisheries a strong focus of his tenure.”

I have no issue with Mr. Woodcock making fisheries a strong focus. No sour grapes here. What I might question is the need for three advisory groups – one for trout, one for salmon (landlocked variety) and another for bass. While I have not seen anything to indicate otherwise, I’m assuming all of these seats on these boards are voluntary. Thanks go out to those volunteers.

First, let me explain that fisheries is not my specialty. I seldom stick my little toe into fisheries issues. I’m sure there are arguments for and against the need for three fisheries advisory groups. I suppose it’s nice, like one on one attention a student might get in a classroom, for trout, salmon and bass to get special attention. One could argue that a fisherman is a fisherman is a fisherman, however, if you pay attention, you’ll find this is not true. Some fishermen spend the greatest part of their time with a focus on one particular species of fish. Perhaps then, they bring a lot to the table. But then again, I hope their focus isn’t so narrow they can’t see a bigger plan for all fisheries. Is this dynamic only manifested in fisheries?

Once again, no sour grapes here. Provided that no one specie-specific group gets preferential treatment and as such or any treatment comes at the expense of another preferred specie or discipline used for catching, perhaps lots of good can happen.

It may be too early to exclaim, “I never got a dinner”, but what about hunting and trapping. There are two very important issues here to bring up first. One is the issue that Maine hunters got several deer task forces and coyote task forces, none of which accomplished anything in the end. In addition, the deer hunters got a “Plan”. Which brings me to the second issue. We’ve already learned that, while the “Plan” sounded good to some, there was no money to do anything with the plan.

Is there money to do something with the advice from the volunteers of these three fisheries groups? If there is, where did it come from?

So, was the deer and coyote task forces (okay, let’s toss in the recent task force to figure out why nobody wants to buy game licenses in Maine.), along with Maine’s Plan for Deer, the equivalent of three fisheries groups? Or should we look for announcements to come later in the year.

I raised the concern earlier in this piece as to whether MDIFW needed three fisheries groups, i.e. one for trout, one for salmon and another for bass. If this is the new trend or Commissioner Woodcock’s disclosure of him being “serious about fisheries”, then I suspect we should see later the formation of hunting and trapping groups that also are species specific. In other words, hunter volunteers can advise the commissioner on deer, moose, bear, turkey, grouse, etc. and trappers can advise on beaver, muskrat, mink, otter, marten, bobcat, fisher, coyote, fox, etc.

Or will I not get a dinner?

I applaud Mr. Woodcock on what appears to be his attempt to reach out to the sportsmen to get them involved in fish and game issues and help in setting policy that more closely reflects the wishes of the sportsmen (I am in hopes that’s his intention.). God knows I’ve beat that drum enough times. So this is not about sour grapes. If nothing else comes from these three fisheries groups other than finally getting a collective voice in direct communication with the commissioner, then it would appear only good can come from that. That’s one giant step.

And with only that one very important accomplishment showing itself proud (I hope), then I strongly encourage Mr. Woodcock to already be thinking about his volunteer advisory groups for earmarked species for the hunters and trappers. Let’s really expand that base of communication and get those with the investment the chance to be heard, once again.

While you are at it, please don’t put anyone from Maine Audubon, the Nature Conservancy, the Humane Society of the United States or any other anti-hunting, animal rights and environmental representatives on these boards. Thank you.

I’m anxious for my dinner.

Tom Remington

Share

Open Thread – April 4, 2012

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

Share

Cutting Off Supply Lines to Animal Rights’ Intrusions and Tax Dollar Heists

Just yesterday a reader at the Black Bear Blog left a comment pertaining to an article I had written last week entitled, “Relationships With Fish and Game Departments at All Time Low“. Part of that comment said:

When the Allies won World War II, they didn’t just fight the battle on the front lines, they attacked the enemy’s ability to fight the war by bombing their factories. They went after their supply lines. It’s the same with fighting the insane policies of the far left. You can’t just try to fight the battle on the front lines of public opinion; you have to go after their supply lines. And their biggest supply line is how they’ve corrupted the environmental movement and then use it to fund themselves to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Those of us who are knowledgeable about the antics of the animal rights organizations, have a good understanding of how, through dishonesty and abuse, these groups have successfully funded their activities. Perhaps what isn’t discussed enough is the fact that many of these same organizations have propitiously infiltrated every level of local, state and federal governmental departments and hijacked those agencies in order to perpetuate their agendas and funding.

In the article linked to above, I wrote: “Fish and game departments have become giant government agencies with too many powers and a focus that caters to environmentalism and animal rights and animal protection.” (emboldening added) What is it within these departments that has created this shift away from sportsmen and onto environmentalism, animal rights and animal protection? It’s mostly due to the infiltration of members of these organizations at every level and every agency.

Also last week I posted information about how APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) was looking to contract with someone or agency that could provide Internet spying on anyone suspected of any kind of ill-defined animal abuse. If you read the entire contract proposal, not only will you discover how radical it is, but that it smells terribly of something spawned by animal rights radical groups such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to name just one.

On December 20, 2011, I posted a press release that was sent out by the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance about the troubles with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/APHIS having been permeated by HSUS and as a result were setting the department’s agenda and policy in dealing with animal rights issues.

Moran noted in his Nov. 2, 2011 comments that he discovered U.S. Department of Agriculture memos authorizing the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to hold a forum—at taxpayer expense—on animal rights and agriculture. In fact, another memorandum noted that a prior meeting with HSUS and USDA staffers was held to “set the agenda” for the upcoming forum. Moran noted in his Senate testimony that USDA met with HSUS despite it being an animal rights organization and “no friend to rural America, farmers or ranchers.”

It’s vitally important to the information in this article to read the USSA press release as it contains several documented accounts of how HSUS has, like a toxic gas, permeated the USDA. It appears the method of operation is to first sue the USDA and then use that leverage to gain access and perpetuate their agendas.

Another example of HSUS’ annexing of the USDA/APHIS is found in an article sent to me by a reader. It explains how one person, Sarah Conant, before becoming a lawyer, went to work for HSUS as an animal protection litigator. She continued her work with HSUS through receiving her Bar license and after five short years was hired by the USDA/APHIS.

These are only tiny examples of what is taking place. These are the supply lines that need to be broken. We cannot allow the HSUS to be the indoctrination springboard where well-bred minions become agents within our governmental departments; the end result is the death and destruction of individual rights, freedom and this nation.

The easy part is exposing the evil. Cutting off the supply lines is a monumental task.

Tom Remington

Share

Coyote Pack and Sleepless Nights

Of course it’s definitely springtime in Florida. Daytime highs have been in the 80s and nights cool to the upper 60s. This means sleeping with the windows open and sometimes a fan. It’s also pollen season and it’s kicking me in the butt. I try not to run the fan for that reason. Probably I should close up the house and turn on the AC but I’m afraid Algore wouldn’t approve of that.

Last night was a fanless night and without a fan there’s little to drown out the other outdoor noises. I live in a unique place in that I am perhaps a quarter mile from what is considered the city center and yet to my north is a large wooded area, including about 5 or 6 acres of field. Across the street to the west are a couple of large, by city standards, farms with cattle, horses, llamas, alpacas, chickens and there must be a rooster as I occasionally hear his call.

It’s the wooded area to the north where the pack of coyotes live. The den cannot be far away as I can hear, mostly at night, when the adult dogs bring home something to eat and the pups, who by the sounds are getting quite big, yelp, bark and howl at being treated. This happened several times during last night. In addition, each time fire and rescue or police sirens sounded, and last night it seemed a lot, the pack would howl and yap and yelp! What a pain!

I’m guessing by listening, there must be at least 4 or 5 pups, possibly more.

Tom Remington

Share

Open Thread – April 3, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information about issues not related to content of blogs posted here. Thank you.

Share

Obama Administration Refuses to Allow Public More Time to Weigh-in on President Obama’s Plan to Zone the Oceans

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 28, 2012 – House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today received notice from the Obama Administration that they will not agree to his request for a 90-day extension of the public comment period on the draft National Ocean Policy Implementation plan.

“President Obama issued an Executive Order imposing a new bureaucracy to zone the oceans that threatens to deter new economic investment, suppress job creation, restrict even recreational fishing, block energy development, and stretch far from the shore to affect farmers and inland communities. Given the high economic stakes, the vast amounts of new red-tape set to be unrolled, and the fact that some 15 agencies spent over two years devising this scheme, it’s unreasonable that the Obama Administration won’t allow the American people more than just 75 days to review and comment on it. This refusal to allow a thorough and open review of the plan to carry-out the President’s Executive Order is another example of the Obama Administration prioritizing their job-destroying agenda over the livelihoods of Americans from coast to coast,” said Chairman Hastings.

Despite several hearings and additional requests for more information, the Administration continues to refuse to tell Congress what programs they are cutting to provide the money to fund this new bureaucracy. The Administration has also failed to comply with requests for information regarding funding and staffing to implement the National Ocean Policy and a copy of any budget planning memoranda, drafts, and other guidance related to the development or implementation of the National Ocean Policy that was provided to federal agencies or departments for developing their FY 2013 and FY 2014 budget proposals.

In the hopes that more time might allow the Administration to provide budget information as well as provide more time for affected stakeholder groups to comment on the overall plan, Chairman Hastings first requested a 90-day extension in a letter sent to the co-chairs of President Obama’s National Ocean Council on February 23, 2012. This request was refused and only an additional 30 days were provided. A follow-up letter was sent on March 20, 2012 to once again request that the public comment period on the draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan be extended for a full 90 days.

The deadline for this information was March 26, 2012.

Share

Open Thread – April 2, 2012

Please use this open thread to post your ideas, comments and information concerning issues not relevant to the content of publish articles on this blog. Thank you.

Share

Relationships With Fish and Game Departments at All-Time Low

Yesterday in the Missoulian, republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill stated, “One of the things I’ve heard everywhere that I go is that the relationship today between Fish, Wildlife and Parks and landowners and sportsmen is at an all-time low.”

Should this come as a surprise to anyone? Do people think that this is something that has happened overnight? No and no! And this seemingly newly discovered phenomenon isn’t relegated to Montana. It’s an epidemic that reaches every state in this Union. Sportsmen and landowners have almost as bad an opinion of their fish and game departments as Americans do of their Congress or the presidency. And why is that?

There once was a day when fish and game departments were constructed with the idea to devise plans that would perpetuate game species so that everyone had a chance to stock up on food and/or sell animal furs to supplement or provide income. These fish and game departments originally were a direct extension of the outdoor sportsmen.

Not anymore! Fish and game departments have become giant government agencies with too many powers and a focus that caters to environmentalism and animal rights and animal protection. Along with this demented change in direction and overreaching power grab, landowners are not only losing rights to use their land as is necessary but in some cases they lose their land altogether. And with this do we really need to doubt what Hill says, that this relationship between sportsmen/landowners and fish and game is at an all-time low?

When fish and game departments functioned as a supporting entity of the sportsmen, there was also a certain degree of ownership and pride in that ownership. Are any readers old enough to remember the day when you could actually talk with a representative from a fish and game department and be treated as an equal, one with respect and an understanding of who paid whose salary? That pride of ownership kept sportsmen involved in the process. They knew their voice would be heard and when it wasn’t, fish and game personnel were out of a job.

Today, fish and game departments pretend they are interested in the sportsmen. Some even masquerade as humans who understand their role and function as that of serving the public. But don’t be fooled. They are a government organization. Governments are not any friend of the people and they certainly are not friends of sportsmen or landowners. This is because sportsmen and landowners are what stand in their way to fulfill their agendas of protecting wildlife, ridding human presence from the forests and fields, relegating us all to concrete jungles and levying control over us all. Get rid of us and they get what they want, or at least think they do.

But the problem that perpetuates this insanity is that government attempts to fix government with more government. It’s what keeps them collecting a salary. Talk is cheap. Words in this case are nothing more than campaign rhetoric, meaningless drivel to placate the masses in order to steal your vote.

Until states regain control over their environmentalism-strangled fish and game departments and change the direction and goals back to game management combined with an understanding and respect for landowners, nothing will change. Actually look for it to get worse.

The people are lazy, brainwashed robots who want government to do their bidding. Why do you think we are where we are now? Government is not the answer to government.

Tom Remington

Share

GNAT Shooting

Share