August 6, 2020

Sec. Kerry Will Sign UN Arms Treaty Today

gunandscalesofjusticeBefore there is complete panic in the streets from the Second Amendment advocates, please realize that Secretary of State John Kerry’s signature on an arms treaty with the UN is not “the supreme law of the land.” All treaties MUST be ratified by the United States Senate and signed by the president.

Having said that, there is trouble on the horizon. It was back last April, shortly after the announcement that the United States would sign on to the newest version of a UN arms treaty, that I wrote:

Whether it’s the Obama Administration or the next or next, they will succeed in getting guns away from the American population. Historical odds are stacked heavily in favor of that happening. I will repeat myself one more time and say that the millions and millions of guns owned by a few million U.S. citizens is the only and last deterrent keeping us away from total despotic and tyrannical rule.

Historically I have heard the naysayers stating that we will never lose our right to keep and bear arms and yet the same naysayers have not followed the history about guns and rights. They fail to see or admit that those rights are slowly but surely being eaten away at and in time will disappear.

The UN Arms Trade Treaty defines what kind of weaponry will be included that will be tightly “controlled” by the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). Beginning on Page 4 of the treaty, Article 2, “Scope”, Section 1, the last item on the list is, “Small Arms and Light Weapons.”

So, yes, this treaty will involve the regulation by the UNODA of the buying and selling of the guns and ammunition many Americans enjoy and possess. Of course the United Nations and the totalitarian leaders of our government are making every effort to exploit events like Syria and Kenya to lie to people and tell them that if such a treaty was in effect, these events wouldn’t happen. No, seriously, they are.

Many that are in opposition to this treaty say that if the U.S. ratifies this treaty, we would be required to devise some kind of tracking system of all our weapons, including private ownership. On Page 5 of the Treaty, Article 3, “Ammunition/Munitions” it reads:

Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), and shall apply the provisions of Article 6 and Article 7 prior to authorizing the export of such ammunition/munitions.

How do you suppose the United States of America would devise a “national control system?” I can only imagine and I’ll leave that up to you.

However, think globally. All signatories of this Treaty must abide by the same rules. I would then assume that some of our favorite foreign-made guns and ammunition will be strictly regulated by the UNODA.

As anyone can imagine, the Treaty is a legal nightmare, intentionally left vague and confusing in order that self interpretation can result. It is fool’s play to think otherwise. I would, however, like to point out one part of Article 7, “Export and Export Assessment”, (1). Please go read it. It attempts to define certain “relevant factors” that would prohibit the export of ammunition/munitions. These “relevant factors” are deliberately written in order that they can be applied to any condition they deem necessary.

The big question now becomes will the U.S. Senate ratify this treaty? We know Obama would eagerly sign his name to it should the Senate approve. I don’t have a crystal ball but I think I can do a pretty decent job of briefly explaining, based on past history, what will go down.

If this newest arms treaty does not pass muster in the Senate, the events leading up to a vote and all subsequent arms treaty votes in the future, will lead to the eventual disarmament of American citizens; piece by piece. It seems that with each passing Senate vote on UN arms, the margin between those for and against, continues to shrink.

A stand alone disarmament treaty would take decades to pass and thus, like we see repeatedly in our own Houses of Congress, laws get stuffed in and among other bills. A favorite seems to be budget bills. For example, at present Congress is debating about whether to pass a bill to allow the U.S. Government to keep spending money it doesn’t have. In order to get the number of votes necessary to pass, crooked and thieving back room deals are made. The deals often get through with the budget bill and very few, if any, Americans are aware that it happened. This is probably how a disarmament treaty will get passed by the Senate.

With a dumbing down and further indoctrination of the American people, members of Congress will lose sight of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Already we hear political leaders saying that signing this treaty will not effect the right of the American people to keep and bears arms. That’s a lie because it is a limiting of rights.

But with each event of arms treaty proposals, a certain amount of pressure is put on governments, congresses and the citizenry at large to give in, at least some, on giving up the right to keep and bear arms. This is historical, as every day we witness limits on all of our rights. Guns are no different and in some ways might lead the way in that regard.

The U.S. Senate may or may not pass this treaty, but it will come. One way or another we will be disarmed. A one world government cannot succeed so long as U.S. citizens are armed.

Please don’t be fooled into thinking that should the Senate not agree to this treaty, we are out of the woods. The mere act of Secretary of State John Kerry signing this UN Treaty, is an act that promises that the United States will do everything it can to adhere to the terms of this treaty EVEN IF THE SENATE FAILS TO RATIFY.

Mid-term elections are just around the corner. It would be good advice for me to encourage you to call or write your senator and tell them the U.S. in not interested in giving up its sovereignty and being ruled by the United Nations.

Or you can continue to live the lie.


The Protect the Wolf CON Job CONtinues

wolfpups - CopyGuest article by Rattler Rider

So wolves should be on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) list because 85% of their original range has no wolves expanded into that range. NEVER MIND that wolves would have to be on agricultural and city lands to meet that objective; competing with coyotes for mice apparently. And since the prey species is not at the population levels needed to sustain wolves on the entire original range what the hell will they eat?

Dr. Vucetich also speaks of his expertise in making judgement calls based upon the language of the ESA. Are judgement calls by experts ever dead wrong? ABSOLUTELY and Dr. Vucetich is dead wrong here and so is the ESA document. Shouldn’t the Buffalo and Elk herds that once roamed the plains be in that same range before brilliant enlightened men attempt to restore wolves onto that same range? What are we missing here? Come on Dr. V? Unenlightened minds beg to know?

Wait, Dr. V! Some of us get it, wolves should go onto the other 85% of their original range regardless of the fact this would prove unsustainable for the wolves and very likely create negative wolf-human-conflict. You’ve convinced me V! You really are a moron. Or you’re afraid to say what you should have said: Yes, wolves should be delisted because the prey species cannot support them on the other 85% of their “original range.” Which is what USFWS even claims as factual.

Is this why they removed you from the peer review board?

Now, the other thing here is it’s obviously long past time to rewrite the ESA. I love how you professors of vast knowledge keep proving that.


Idealism: Keep Politicians Out of Wildlife Policy Decisions

politicssuckNot only is it idealism, it’s fools play to actually think that anyone can keep politicians out of wildlife policy decisions. This is not going to happen and never has. It’s also one of the reasons politics AND environmentalism are so deeply rooted into wildlife policy decisions. It may be a problem that there exists too many outdoor enthusiasts who think just as Craig Dougherty, at Outdoor Life, in an opinion piece, when he expresses that:

I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the last person I want making wildlife policy is a politician. This is especially true when it comes to making major decisions on how wildlife and the future of hunting should be managed.

Well, dang! Get in line Bubba! There’s nothing I would like any more than to tell politicians to get to hell out of wildlife management and my life as a whole. As a matter of fact, those readers who know my work understand that I would like to see politicians just get to hell out…..period!

But this is idealistic poppycock. It is also one of many reasons I began writing back over a decade ago about hunting, fishing, trapping, the outdoors in general and how politics and politicians were screwing it all up. Sticking one’s head in the sand stating they are not going to contact their representative because they don’t want them involved in wildlife politics will accomplish nothing. For those who vote, try voting for somebody who believes as you do.

I despise politics in wildlife management! I’m partial to the North American Wildlife Management Model and managing game animals for surplus harvest. When politics control wildlife policy decisions, these two policies get flushed down the toilet. And we, as the real conservationists, the outdoor sportsman, are supposed to bang our heads on the floor and refuse to play anymore?

I think someone needs a time out.

But this opinion writer is not alone and it’s a shame really. The other day I was visiting a message board that I check into from time to time to see what’s going on in the trapping world. What appeared to me to be a young person, posted a question about a particular species’ trapping season but qualified his/her question by first stating that he/she didn’t want anybody offering an answer that had anything to do with politics. Isn’t that like me telling you to go to Washington and find an honest person?

This, in and of itself, I found troubling but it got even worse. It took a while for the conversation to get rolling there but eventually this young person revealed that they planned to be a “fur bearer biologist” and that he/she didn’t like politics, etc. etc. Boy, is this person in for a rude awakening.

Money, greed and politics are all mightily engrained into our lifestyle in America. I contend that, for many, perhaps like Mr. Dougherty, it’s much easier to escape to the fields and streams and wish it would all go away. But it will not and if more and more people like Dougherty and this young, aspiring fur-bearer biologist, don’t recognize reality and/or are not willing to address it, what hope is there left that there will be anything left to hunt, fish, trap, etc.?

Dougherty says that he would support an “agency” person within fish and wildlife over a politician.

…when it comes to actually writing the regulations and setting deer policy, I’ll take the agency guy over a politician every time.

I understand the attempt at somehow separating writing wildlife policy from the politicians but for the most part isn’t the entire structure of a fish and game department political? Someone has to hire the biologists, the wardens, the commissioner, etc. Don’t be so naive to think that politics aren’t involved at the initial hiring. Some would argue that state regulations protect those hired so the next political hack that arrives at the door can’t fire them for political reasons. That doesn’t change the fact that politics played a role from the initial hiring and always will. All that has changed is the party in power.

Perhaps instead of choosing the role of running away, someone with this kind of frustration should become more involved. Get involved in finding ways to structure fish and game department guidelines to ensure that politicians and their filth and grime cannot and does not micro manage the department. But don’t forget that there will come a time when you will need the power of being able to run to your favorite politician and beg for help. It always happens. Don’t weave your own noose!


Journalism Professor Hopes Next Gun Violence Victims are NRA Members


According to the woman in this video with Cam Edwards, a journalism professor “tweeted”, in response to the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard shootings, that he hoped the next time there was a mass shooting like this that NRA members and their families were the victims.

The discussion early on in the video is about rights, i.e. freedom of speech. The woman declares that journalism students have a right to “be comfortable” in this professor’s classroom and that they cannot exercise their freedom of speech if they feel intimidated by this professor’s comments.

In addition, the woman points out that because the professor’s Twitter profile describes him as being a journalism professor at a university, makes whatever he writes on Twitter connected to the university. The professor claims what he does off or away from the school is his own business.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I don’t think too many would argue that making such a statement in a public setting and being a college professor (sort of high profile) is quite over the top. Perhaps it is more of a reflection of the divide and hatred that is being fomented in this country over issues. It’s also not a real smart thing to be spouting off about in public. Apparently the professor was confronted by media after the statement and is not regretting making it.

My question, to myself and to readers is, are we making more out of this, because we have become a hateful, spiteful, politically correct bunch of cry babies? Or is this overstepping one’s belief in what freedom of speech is? I guess I would have to add to this the question of whether or not people actually understand what freedom of speech is and why it was important to include it in the Bill of Rights?


77% Support Legal Hunting as Means to Control Wildlife Populations

In a recent Responsive Management Report newsletter, among an array of attitudes and people’s perspectives on dealing with nuisance wildlife, is a statistic showing that 77% of the 3,962 survey respondents in 13 northeast states, support legal and regulated hunting as a viable means of controlling wildlife populations.

Nuisance Newsletter

The 13 states include: Connecticut (307), Delaware (302), Maine (300), Maryland (300), Massachusetts (303), New Hampshire (308), New Jersey (302), New York (311), Pennsylvania (302), Rhode Island (305), Vermont (320), Virginia (301), and West Virginia (301). The number in parentheses are the number of participants of the survey in that state.

The survey includes attitudes of people about nuisance wildlife, species involved, what the nuisance was, who should deal with these nuisance issues, including how this should be funded.

A full report can be found here.


That Modern, Updated Version of the Second Amendment

I was sent this information via email. It contains information about a study guide for an Advance Placement History Exam in which it appears as though great liberties were taken in the writing and publication of this study guide to alter the text of at least one of the Bill of Rights, i.e The Second Amendment.

I can confirm that this study guide can be purchased on Amazon. I can also confirm that part of what is contained in the email is also found as the write up about the study guide found on Amazon.

This text is designed for a one-semester or one-year United States history course for students preparing to take the AP U.S. History Exam. Teachers can assign the book as the course textbook or as a supplement to a college-level textbook. U.S. History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination presents the history of the United States from pre-Columbian times to the Obama administration. It follows the curriculum put out by the College Board for this course of study.

The quote above is only partial. The remainder can be read by visiting the link provided above.

If you take the time to visit Amazon and scroll down to see how the study guide has been rated and the comments left by consumers, you will discover the guide gets very low ratings and recommendations of NOT to allow students to read this information.

I can also confirm at least some media outlets online are talking about this.

So what’s all the fuss? According to what was provided to me, and a copy of it can be found below, one incident in the study guide provides to students what the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights says. I do not have a copy of this study guide so I’m a bit reluctant to publish this.

But first, for those who don’t know or can’t exactly remember, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But, what appears in the study guide is considerably different.

The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia.

And this follows the curriculum of the College Board?

There once was a time when I would have completely blamed political agendas for this. I’m wondering how much of this is actually due to ignorance and ineptitude?

I’d also be curious as to what other travesties are written into this study guide?

So why is this such a tragedy and rewriting the Bible is not?


Share Introduces “Black Bear Bingo”

In keeping with our collection of wild animal excuses drivel board games, introduces readers to Black Bear Bingo. In anticipation of the upcoming anti hunting, anti rights, anti bear management citizen initiative to end bear hunting and trapping, has crafted the Black Bear Bingo board game.

Each time you read or hear one of the lame excuses for bear behavior, like, “Attacks are not normal”, or “They’re more afraid of you”, mark it on your card. If you get 5 across, down on diagonally, then you can realize the extent of the ignorance and bias that exists in wildlife management and the poor job the media does in reporting it.

Click here for a downloadable PDF game board that you can easily print out. Take a copy with you wherever you go and share it with your friends and family.



Avoiding Root Causes of Gun Violence

gunandscalesofjusticeI read with interest yesterday Paul Mirengoff’s article at the Powerline Blog. Mirengoff’s is the first article I’ve seen that even comes close to addressing the root causes of what leads to gun violence or violence in general. He calls it the war on standards.

His argument is that in the case of Aaron Alexis, the latest fruitcake to murder masses of people, a failure of the criminal justice system may have been the root cause of Aaron Alexis ever making it into Building 197 of a Washington, D.C. Navy facility.

In 2004, Alexis blew out the tires of a car that supposedly belonged to someone that made him angry. It is my understanding that at the time this action was considered illegal in Seattle, where the event took place. However, everything appears to have been lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and Alexis was never charged and no record existed that would have showed up in a background check. Is this where it all began?

This is only one case of paperwork hindering and/or preventing “criminal justice.” I personally know of more than one case of “criminals” being allowed to “slip through the cracks” in order to cover up issues, do favors, or in carrying out some kind of plea deal. In one instance, a teacher was caught having an affair with a student. In a “deal”, the man was allowed to quit his job in return that the school department would not place the offense on his record. He soon got another job at a nearby school. Is this not another failure of the “criminal justice system?”

What would have changed in Washington, D.C. had Aaron Alexis’ record showed a past record of gun violence? Perhaps nothing, however, was his employers or even the U.S. Military given an accurate account of this person before he was given a job, a security clearance or allowed in a restricted area? Could he have bought a gun?

As a society we fail miserably when it comes to addressing the root causes of our problems. In the recent Washington, D.C. mass shootings, the debate immediately goes to banning guns and yet, few, if any, bring up the fact that it is virtually impossible, according to D.C. law, to own a gun there. If that law is so wonderful and is designed for public safety, as the lie goes, then isn’t this another case proving laws banning guns do nothing to deter mentally ill people, or those prone to violence or the common crook?

Recently, an unending push by the Obama Administration to restrict magazine sizes and toughen background checks, is argued to have zero affect on gun violence. If we had those “tougher background checks”, would Aaron Alexis have been prohibited from buying his shot gun? Remember, his act of gun violence in Seattle in 2004 went unreported and therefore would not and did not show up in his background check to buy the shotgun in Virginia two days before his murdering spree. Is the problem here the existence of guns?

Some would say so. They believe that if we could just ban all guns, this stuff would go away. Would it? Where’s the data that shows that? Data actually indicates the opposite. Shooting sprees occur in “gun free zones.” And how is our record in properly enforcing existing laws? Is there any corruption involved?

Let’s face it, guns bring out the most emotional and irrational conversations between pro and anti gun advocates. So long as this exists, there is never any hope that facts might get in the way of decision making.

I agree for the most part with Mirengoff that actions and reactions, combined with politics, special interests and basic overall corruption has sparked a war on standards. Standards could also be substituted with the word “morals.” But this has been going on for decades and yet as a society we bury our heads in the sand, never to address the root causes, always placating to the politically correct.

For example, today I learned that Starbucks is going to announce that guns are no longer welcome in their coffee stores. Why? Because too many people are showing up with guns and that is offending some of their customers. In addition, the owner says that he has to walk a fine line in order to placate all of his customers. In other words, he doesn’t want to drive business away because some people might be scared or offended by the sight of a gun and yet, he wants to appear sympathetic to gun rights and the Constitution. Is it possible to have it both ways?

The owner of Starbucks has every right to dictate, within the law, the rules of his establishments, however, if you will notice in this ABC News article, there is no mention that due to the increase in people showing up to their stores with more guns, that there hasn’t been any increase in gun violence or related problems.

Due to the assault on standards, it may be the root cause of why, after every mass shooting or horrific gun violent act, the cry seems only to go out for a ban on guns. We’ve not finished destroying that standard yet, evidently. If existing laws cannot be properly executed for reasons that might range from, inept paper shuffling to outright racism and corruption, what hope is there that even a background check would do any good?

The other rant that is taking place on all news media outlets has to do with mental illness and the demand that somehow if Aaron Alexis had been fingered as a psycho, none of this would have happened. I continue to ask the question, what is it that people want? From what I have been hearing on the news since this event is that anyone being treated for mental illness should be locked up. Really? Everyone? And if not everyone, then which ones? How many? Who gets to decide?

There are basic standards in which, if we did a better job of adhering to them, perhaps some of these tragic events could have been avoided. However, no system is perfect. No laws are ever going to stop this nonsense. Thinking that taking away liberties from normal people is going to solve this problem is irrational in nature and oppressive in turn, with no change toward a desired outcome to end or reduce gun violence.

Failure to address root causes is akin to never fixing a flat tire so long as adding air will get you where you need to go for now and thinking there would never be a blowout.


Is MDIFW Promoting a Rebuilt Deer Herd?

deerFound at the Portland Press Herald website is an article discussing the upcoming hunting seasons in Maine. About halfway down the page was this gem:

Probably the best news is the deer herd, which is now back to levels not seen since before the severe winters of 2007-08 and 2008-09.

“After three fairly mild winters, the deer population has rebounded, and that is reflected in last year’s buck kill and the increase in any-deer permits,” said Kyle Ravana, Maine’s deer biologist.

The article further goes on to brag about how buck harvests are up 23%, and it “exceeded the 10-year average.” I suppose I should insert a little “wink-wink” emoticon right here. Further prediction is that this year’s deer harvest should be around 25,000 or 26,000, which would be “nearly a 20 percent increase from the previous year.”

Please pardon me while I don’t do cartwheels over this so-called “best news.” If the deer herd is bouncing back in some places I can’t say that it has much to do with the efforts of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). While efforts to kill coyotes is always good news, the targeting efforts, killing a few hundred coyotes over the past two winters, is NOT responsible for any resurgence in the deer herd in my opinion. And while I’m discussing efforts to, in fact, do something about a deer herd that is sure to be destroyed when Maine has another round of severe winters, absolutely nothing substantial has been done to address the overblown population of black bears that are probably killing more deer fawns than coyotes are. In addition, Maine is staring down the barrel of another citizen’s initiative by environmentalists aimed at ending bear hunting and trapping. And then what?

However, I and we could sit here for hours on end and argue about what has and hasn’t caused the deer herd to go up and down and all around. The point of all this is a warning to sportsmen not to be snookered by the MDIFW sales pitch. The truth is nothing has been done that would prevent another tragedy to the deer herd WHEN the next round of bad winters falls upon Maine.

Somehow MDIFW thinks we should be excited over a deer harvest of 25,000-26,000 deer. Compared to the bottom of the barrel, yeah, I guess it would look better. And I don’t blame MDIFW for doing what they can to rally the troops. They do have to sell licenses but isn’t it a better sell when there’s actually deer to hunt and one can brag about the fantastic deer management the department has done instead of thanking global warming for helping to save their jobs?

And the future for deer hunting isn’t all that great when you consider what might happen should hunting and trapping of bears be essentially destroyed. Any hopes of MDIFW channeling resources to manage a deer herd will be chewed up trying to find ways to keep bears from killing people and livestock.

But enough of bragging to the press about how “kumbaya” things are with Maine’s “rebounded” deer herd. It got me to thinking though and so I scratched around to find some data of interest that is often overlooked……or actually, probably never seen. I wanted readers to be able to take a look at deer harvest numbers from the early 1900s up until the present. In addition, I thought it would be interesting to examine the number of hunting licenses sold and sort of compare that with the harvest data to see about hunter success rates….sort of.

Before I present this data and add commentary to it, let me explain a few things that makes the data a bit faulty, or at least not something that you can take to the bank as exact data. Let me explain. The deer harvest numbers are accurate. Those numbers come directly from MDIFW information, including website and printed publications.

The number of licensed hunters includes all license sales. This number in no way represents an accurate number of licensed hunters who hunted deer. It also includes non-resident license sales of the same kind. One other note, the license data up until and including 2003 came from MDIFW publications. 2004 – 2012 was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Therefore the success rate percentage should only be used as an indicator to inspire thought. I have no way of knowing if variables within the license data is somewhat stable or not. What I was hoping for was an indication as to whether success rate for bagging a deer went up or down or whether there were any indications as to why. It is probably more speculative on my part. As I said, the harvest numbers are accurate.

When I began this little project, I was wondering if I could show that getting excited over a deer harvest of 26,000 was really something MDIFW should be bragging about when compared to history. Let’s see what I found.

I’ve provided a PDF for readers to download, especially if they would like a copy of the harvest numbers to refer back to. Below is a photo copy of the PDF for quicker reference to this story. You may need to click on it to enlarge it.

From the information that I have at my disposal, it shows that the peak deer harvest came in 1959. That harvest was 41,735 deer. In addition, that same year 175,530 total licenses were sold. That compares with 251,988 total licenses sold last year, 2012. If you were to calculate a success rate from harvest compared to licenses sold, it equals 23.8%.

For comparison, the low harvest occurred in 2009. A harvest of 18,092 was registered, with total license sales at 276,493. The calculated success rate at 6.5%.

To be forthcoming, if you examine the data in the table below, you will see harvest and license tallies prior to 1940 that are lower than the 2009 figures. I question those numbers and chose not to use them. You can if you would like.

Let’s look a bit closer. That peak harvest that happened in 1959 comes at what appears to be a pretty healthy hunting period for Maine residents. Beginning in 1945 through 1965, this 21-year period saw an average annual deer harvest of 36,112 and an average success rate of, 22.4%. During that same time, an average of 162,794 licenses were sold.

If we compare these numbers with the last 10 years, we will see that the average deer harvest from 2003 – 2012 was 24,766. Success rate averaged 9.7%, while the average number of licenses sold stood at 259,564.

MDIFW chooses to see if they can get a thrill to run up a quarter of a million licensed hunters’ legs by telling them they can expect to harvest 26,000 deer. And yet we see that over the past 10 seasons, nearly 100,000 more hunters are taking 69% fewer deer than they did a mere 40 years ago. What’s being done about that?

Is that the trick? We allow several years in a row with deer harvest numbers running in the high teens to low twenties and then convince hunters 26,000 is a good number and state the deer herd has rebounded? Come on man!

What amazes me is the fact that there are still at least 250,000 people willing to buy a Maine hunting license. It pains me every year to come back to Maine and spend $125.00 (approx) for a non resident license when I’m looking at a success rate that might be as low as 6% or 7%. Ouch! I guess I just consider it a donation and hope that someday that money will go towards deer management instead of saving piping plovers and protecting the predators that are the biggest contributors toward the destruction of this deer herd.

Some would argue that but when you factor in the harsh winters, which will come roaring back, deer yards become blood baths due to coyote predation. In the spring, the bears and coyotes clean up the fawns, reducing recruitment to near non existent. When you combine these truths with all the other excuses, there’s a dim future.

So which of these can we do something about?



Double Standard in Fining Who Kills Protected Animals

deadeaglesHere’s an interesting scenario. If a town can be fined for not preventing dogs from killing protected birds, can owners of windmills be fined for not preventing their machines from killing protected birds?

The events in Scarborough, Maine should open people’s eyes to the dictatorial fascism of the Endangered Species Act and the reality that there is no such thing as state of local governmental sovereignty. Especially when it comes to protecting animals and who is responsible for it. Protecting people? Not so much.

Piping plovers, a federally protected bird that the state of Maine and the Federal Government spend far too much money trying to protect (actually the goal here is to drive people off beaches), is part of this scenario.

According to the Scarborough Leader, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) plans to levy a $12,000 fine against the town because they can’t stop people from letting their dogs run loose. This action is being blamed for the deaths of piping plovers.

If the USFWS or any other federal agency can levy fines against towns for not doing the work of the government, or if you don’t like that statement, for NOT PREVENTING deaths of birds, then shouldn’t the owners of windmills be fined as well for the same reasons?

Fox News is reporting that windmill farms across the country are responsible for the deaths of at least 85 bald and golden eagles, most coming from one farm in California, and yet the Obama Administration refuses to levy fines against the owners of windfarms. Instead, he is proposing something similar to an “Incidental Take Permit” allowing windfarm owners to legal kill a prescribed number of eagles each year.

If that is the case then I suggest that President Obama issue the town of Scarborough, Maine an “Incidental Take Permit” for piping plovers. Or is it that Scarborough isn’t one of Obama’s cronies entitled to the many special privileges he loves to hand out?