January 21, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it reason enough, and “with vigor?”

Evidently.

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

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

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

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

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

Share

When Deer Management Seems Stupid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

There’s More To Managing Game Than Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surely something positive must be done.

Share

Former Maine Deer Biologist Gerry Lavigne Questions Next Year’s Deer Hunting Opportunities

At the end of November past (2018) I reported on the Maine deer harvest. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) officials seemed eager to announce a big increase in the deer harvest attributing most of the increase to a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” issued in parts of Central and Southern Maine.

In my report I made the following statements: “There’s a problem with issuing record numbers of ADPs, even if the majority of those ADPs are issued for Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) with more deer per square mile than managers desire – and one of those problems is what we have seen this season with hunters being able to hunt on lots of snow (in many places) for extended periods of time (three weeks in most of Western Maine).

“I don’t have any scientific data to support any claim that it seems that it is in those areas with the most snow, falling on the earliest dates, are in those WMDs where deer per square mile is extremely sparse. With early snow in those areas combined with a record number of ADPs, have we harvested too many deer? What will this cost us?”

On November 27, 2018, the MDIFW issued a Press Release announcing the results of deer tagging as compiled by their new digital tagging system. The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) published that Press Release in their newspaper which also included an “Editor’s Note” from Gerry Lavigne, former head deer biologist for the MDIFW.

Below is the “Editor’s Note”: “The strong finish to the 2018 deer harvest is not without its downsides. Snow accumulation in the western mountains and northern Maine during the latter half of November was sufficient to cause deer to enter their yards a month earlier than normal. Since then, cold temps and subsequent storms have increased the snowpack. This made for a higher success rate during black powder season. Hunters took a LOT of bucks during the final three weeks of hunting, likely many more than would normally be harvested. This could impact buck availability during 2019.

Because yarding occurred a full month earlier than normal in the northern half of the state, deer could be in for a tough winter. If severe yarding conditions prevail, above-average winter losses among bucks and does could negatively impact deer availability in 2019. Let’s hope for a big thaw, and soon!

Gerry Lavigne

Share

Frustrations In Dealing With Rigged Systems

Most fail to even recognize that our trapped existence takes place within a politically rigged system – at all levels – designed by man for man. Those of us who completely understand this presence avoid it like a wicked plague. Most get frustrated by failures in getting their idealisms pushed through governmental agencies that don’t operate on the same plain as our captive existence.

I was reading a piece the other day from someone exemplifying this very reality. The frustrations where spelled out in disheartening text, sharing such depressing news of how, in his opinion, our government – legislators and administrative departments – don’t do as the people ask, even extolling misguided beliefs that our legislators, as commissioned by their vote, are required to bring to the Legislature all proposed rules and regulations all of which are designed, either purposely or ignorantly, to further repress a once freer society.

Of course our government institutions don’t do as the people want. They do as the People want, but few understand that concept.

We’ve been trained to believe we live in a democracy…as though a democracy was a good thing. The best known definition of democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch. And somehow this is sought after by some? The wolves no doubt.

The frustration exhibited in the piece I’ve referred to is that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) won’t have public hearings and full panel discussions on every proposal any person has ever thought of. The writer exclaims the system is, “…not as it should be.

I might agree with such an assessment however, it appears that according to this writer the way it should be is more personal idealism than realism. In this case the frustration might be more fueled by a person not getting his way most of time rather than the system “not as it should be.”

Then things get confusing. The frustration with the system, described as “the antithesis of democracy, as well as the undermining and ultimate suppression of citizens’ rights,” turns to resentment and whining because the system won’t do things his way. The writer then begins to blame everything on the special interest groups – those groups of course he does not support – and how such special interest groups represent a minority. Is this what his idea of democracy is? That only the majority have a “right” to complain? When we don’t get our way, it seems to be quite normal to blame it on everything but what it is. Blaming special interest groups – in this case hunters, trappers, and fishermen – is a much easier task than learning about and then explaining why our system is rigged and does not operate the way we have all been taught, and then discovering what can be done to change this reality.

In frustration, the author writes, “Let’s not forget that Maine’s wildlife is a vital part of the public domain, not some group’s private preserve to do with as they wish. Just as motorists don’t own public roads, boaters and swimmers don’t own public lakes, hikers don’t own public land, anglers don’t own the fish who [fish should not be referred to as a who. They are not people.] live in public ponds and streams, so hunters and trappers don’t own the state’s wildlife.”

I understand the frustration…really, I do, but, on the same token a voter does not own every proposed piece of legislation. The writer makes it sound like hunters, motorists, boaters, swimmers, hikers, and anglers enjoy unfettered access to any and all wildlife and lands and waters. I believe the argument could honestly be made that those special interest groups experience just as many frustrations as this writer. There is no need to suppress the frustrations and desires of one group over another so that a rigged system might operate as one might suggest it ought to in order to get their way.

It’s difficult to take the complaints seriously from those who stand up in support of democracy and in the same breath speak out against the symptoms of democracy. That makes little sense. If democracy is the form of servitude rule you desire, then your only recourse is to be subject to the rigors of democracy. In other words, sometimes you are the sheep.

Perhaps if the writer, instead of saying the system isn’t working the way he thinks it’s supposed to, had said the system isn’t working the way HE wants it to, would have been more accurate.

We all experience the same frustrations. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and sometimes the squeaky wheel is not the wheel we choose. One thing is for certain. You can’t change a rigged system by employing the rigged system to fix itself. Insanity dictates it’s time to change.

Share

Politics, Culture, Environmentalism, Set To Maine Looking to Compromise Black Bear Management

It certainly appears to me that Maine is being set up for changes that are sure to destroy much of what is left of a once-scientific wildlife management department.

Headlining the news around the Pine Tree State, is the announcement that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is seeking bids from private businesses to establish a “model” that can be used by MDIFW biologists in managing black bears.

Think about this for a moment. For decades now, Maine has boasted as having the premier black bear management program in this here United States. Now they seek outside help? Why? Think what you will but I have my suspicions – the leader of such distrustful actions being another way of appeasing the Environmentalists and Animal Rights purveyor of perverted, and misguided scientismic nonsense to support their agendas. What other reasons are there? To publicly seek outside help is, more than likely, taken by the public as some kind of admission that they can no longer do the job.

If you will recall, MDIFW has stated for several years now that the black bear population is too large and needs to be reduced. However, talk apparently is cheap because with all the talk nothing has changed to mitigate the problem. Are there enough complaints from non-scientific animal rights groups that MDIFW feels the need to go aside the department hoping to muster more believable “data” that they hope will convince the radical Left? Is this some kind of red herring devised to bring more support from the extreme Left to the new governor’s side should she decide to trash the whole idea of better bear management replaced with Romance Biology?

Strange isn’t it that this announcement comes shortly after a new governor has been elected. As is almost always the case, the new Governor, Janet Mills (D), will appoint new commissioners to run her administration. Included in those appointments is that of the MDIFW. Reigning Commissioner Woodcock, who leaves behind a mixed bag of results, will be replaced. It appears Mills’ nomination is the current Director of the Wildlife Division, Judy Camuso.

I have read that the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance supports the Camuso nomination but I haven’t really heard any good reasons for doing so. Some on the Left oppose Camuso’s nomination because she was the mouthpiece for MDIFW during the last anti-bear hunting referendum. While many may support her because of her performance as Division of Wildlife director under Woodcook, it may be plausible that Camuso should be applauded for doing the job Woodcock/LePage wanted her to do. Does anyone really know anything about her political affiliations, her positions on hunting, fishing, trapping, Environmentalism, or Animal Rights?

Politics is politics and you can be sure that such good ole boy corruption will never be put aside to find the best available candidate for the job. Don’t get me wrong. I said I don’t know any of this stuff. What I do know is that she seemed to be a good mouthpiece for Mr. Woodcock. In reality, when you consider the governor elect’s background, why would she nominate someone that wasn’t her yes person?

Environmentalism is taking over the world and Maine is not exempt. A demanding society, the loudest of which is always on the Left, promotes a culture change void of any kind of scientific-based wildlife management programs – such programs that utilize consumptive use as a tool for population controls to promote animal health, public safety, and the opportunity for traditionalists to fill their freezers with food and enjoy the long held traditions of hunting, fishing, and trapping.

In its place, we have seen a growing trend toward demanding the rights of animals over those of people, regardless of the outcome. Instead of using real, proven science in wildlife management, the choice of today is scientism. Essentially, Scientism is the process of creating a desired result for any chosen agenda.

Scientism is most often exposed when anyone, and I mean anyone, can fabricate what appears to be a scientific study, when in fact it is a fraud conjured from the notion that most of the world knows no different and will eagerly accept this fraud as a powerful tool of (fake) scientific knowledge.

We can see that in a “study” composed by a Ph.D and three Masters of Business Administration people from the University of Southern Maine. (and what are their qualifications in creating and substantiating the claims made in the study?) This is the Bible (there is nothing else), evidently, of the radical Left animal rights groups who have spent millions of dollars in attempts to end bear hunting – just another step to the ending of all hunting, trapping, and fishing.

The Voodoo Science and Romance Biology in the Scientismic study is proven as such from merely a basic understanding of hypocrisy and contradictory statements.

Not to get sidetracked, but the point to all of this is why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?

Or maybe it’s nothing more than a sign of what’s to come – the MDIFW, like so many other fish and wildlife departments across the country, has pretty much gone completely environmental, driven exclusively by social demands and global warming.

So, what will happen in Maine and specifically to the MDIFW? Who is Camuso…really? Is she a clone of the new governor? Is she merely a puppet and will do whatever to keep the governor happy? Does she support the move to privatize some of black bear management? What other wildlife species will the new governor and commissioner choose to privatize management of? I’m not sure we can honestly answer these questions. The commissioner elect said she would answer questions AFTER the nomination and election process is over. How then are we to know who the governor is nominating. All members of all parties, as well as those of us who do not identify with any party, would like a chance to voice our concerns before she is elected.

Regardless of all this – black bear modeling, new commissioner – I have little hope that much will change for the good.

Share

Please Name The Benefits

When the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife announced earlier this year that their migration to a new digital tagging system, they told in their press release that this move was going to be very beneficial to hunters. I wondered.

The other day I read another outdoor writer make the statement that this new tagging system, if done properly, would “…allow for even more opportunities that benefit recreational hunters, as well.”

Inquiring minds want to know just how this is going to benefit hunters and provide more “opportunities?”

I think I can guess that if this new system was “done properly,” in other words allowed for the growth and sustainability of all game species for ample surplus harvest, it could be a benefit. But really?

Any help would be appreciated. You can add comments below.

Share

Wolf Mushroom Cloud Is a U.N.E.P. Intentional Disaster

Central Idaho elk and deer herds have suffered the same negative results from the wolf paradigm as described herein..

Share

Still Pushing “Climate Change” As Effecting Winter Ticks. Changing Propaganda?

It is incredibly insane listening to and reading the idiots who insist on spreading the lie that Climate Change is the cause for an increased presence of winter ticks which consequently are killing moose by sucking them dry of blood.

For years now, brain-dead scientismists have beat their propaganda drums that due to “lack of cold winters and ample snow” winter ticks are thriving and killing moose. Their premise has been that northern states, like Maine, because of warmer winters was not killing the ticks. Ignorance and the need to promote a false, non-existence of “Climate Change” (in the context that it is being promoted) failed to understand the complete life cycle of the tick and to what severity of cold, snow, and the right conditions needed to actually limit the number of ticks.

But that hasn’t stopped them from their money-making promotions of “Climate Change.”

From news out of Canada, a report falsely claims that global warming is the cause of moose mortality in Maine and other Northeast States as well as Canada. However, this time around, perhaps motivated by the fact that nobody is buying the B.S. that the lack of “normal” cold winters and snow are causing the ticks to thrive (people are looking out their windows and seeing 3-feet of snow and below zero temperatures in mid-November), they’ve decided to change their propaganda (lies) to approach the manipulation from a slightly different use of words (such as changing global warming to climate change): “…that tick is a parasite that’s given more time to find a host. Moose are just exposed to this potential parasite load for a longer period of time.” (emboldening added) There is never any consideration that the simple fact that too many moose perpetuate the growth and distribution of the winter tick.

Because, evidently, the lack of cold and snow (which isn’t happening on a regular basis) isn’t working out to substantiate their false claims of global warming they now are promoting that due to a warming climate ticks have a longer period of time to find a host moose to ride on for the winter and such them clean of blood.

What’s amazing is these clowns spend all of their “research” time (wink-wink) trying to figure out what’s happening to the moose because of the tick (by using someone else’s data) and nobody is interested in studying the actual tick. The only information being used about the tick is nonsense spread from one half-baked scientismist to another and repeated en masse and eagerly by an irresponsible, enabling, and lazy Media.

Evidently the authors of this propaganda piece didn’t bother to ask those in Maine conducting moose studies, or they didn’t want to because it might upset their agendas, otherwise, they would have found that Maine’s biologists are suggesting that the seemingly unprecedented spread of winter ticks is caused simply by the presence of too many moose.

But, there is no money in finding solutions and there is far more money in perpetuating “Climate Change.”

What’s most sad is the fact that truth and reality are being suppressed due to the perpetuation of the false myths about global warming.

Share

My Recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

George Smith, an outdoor writer, and environmentalist, provides his readers with a list of his recommendations for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). I can’t say I agree with everything he is suggesting. I’ll explain why.

Smith wants a better open door policy at the MDIFW main office. I agree although I don’t use it and probably never will. You can’t fix a rigged system by using the rigged system.

George says it’s time for MDIFW to do something about turkeys. He says there are too many, that the fees and permitting system needs to be changed, bag limits raised, in order to motivate more hunters to take up turkey hunting.

I’m not a turkey hunter. I’ve never tried it and doubt that I will for a number of reasons. I will, however, concur that there are too many turkeys. I’ve never seen as many wild turkeys as I have this late summer and fall.

It is a known fact that management and acceptance of any wild animal on the landscape are heavily influenced by acceptance and satisfaction from the general public. When such animals become a nuisance and a public health and safety issue, acceptance by the public disappears in a hurry. Maine is reaching that point where they are considering the turkey to be a nuisance. I agree something should be done to get those numbers under better control.

It is my strong opinion that Maine has too many moose. This has caused the overwhelming growth in winter ticks that are destroying the moose herd. Maine should have been keeping the moose population at lower, healthier levels than growing them to numbers great enough to appease the selfish desires of tourists and hunters.

Smith suggests a program of capturing and “spraying” moose to kill the ticks. This is about as feasible as trapping deer and planting birth control devices in them. It certainly appears to me that the biggest motivational factor in finding ways to kill the ticks other than reducing the population is completely selfish. Whining and carrying on because moose gawking businesses can’t make enough money unless they can see moose anytime and everywhere they want to is not only selfish but it’s irresponsible. MDIFW is irresponsible in their management goals of the moose to attempt to grow moose to numbers that satisfy the tourist industry.

Smith says that Lee Kantar, MDIFW’s moose biologist, said he, “…believes that eventually the population will be reduced to a level where ticks will not be such a problem.” Eventually? Is this going to happen when the ticks (Natural Regulation) have successfully brought the number of moose to levels it should be through years of suffering moose, or is MDIFW actively manipulating the moose hunt to bring numbers to tick-free desired levels?

Hypocrisy exists when Smith in one breath suggests that moose numbers should be protected by finding ways to “spray” moose to kill ticks, while in the next talks about how proud he was to help facilitate the slaughter of deer on one of Maine’s coastal islands. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. While killing the deer was in the name of putting a stop to Lyme disease, evidently, such a suggestion informs us that ignorance is abundant when it comes to winter ticks, moose, and disease.

Marketing Maine by the Maine government to draw in tourists, hunters, anglers, hikers, etc. is a waste of time and money. Many Maine residents, who aren’t the business owners trying to make a go of it, while calling upon the government to promote their businesses, don’t want more of these people coming to the state, all for the sake of collecting more money. Any business should be geared to do their own marketing and provide a product or service good enough that “if you build it they will come.” Why should I subsidize another’s business? Who is subsidizing me? This is nothing more than an exemplification of the socialist/totalitarian society we have become.

Once again, Smith extolls the need to fund MDIFW with general taxation dollars. He even says that MDIFW should be run by “groups representing hunters, anglers, conservationists, and environmentalists.” It doesn’t take much effort to see that in other states that have done this, their fish and game departments have gone to hell in a handbasket.

I don’t understand how anyone of sound mind can encourage the operation of the fish and game department by those “conservationists and environmentalists” who have cost us millions of dollars over the years attempting to put a stop to hunting and trapping. Isn’t this a form of insanity?

The MDIFW has become overrun with “conservationists and environmentalists” and that’s one of the biggest reasons large predators have grown out of control and deer populations are shrinking to a point they’ve decided not to even bother attempting to manage deer in those areas that have lost all their deer.

Environmentalism is a planned mental illness that operates on the false pretense that “Natural Regulation” (which is an oxymoron) works better than a hands-on approach. Turning the reins of MDIFW over to the environmentalists and animal rights radicals, which is what you’ll get once the leverage of how the MDIFW is funded, is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

It might be of great interest if some who promote general taxation monies to fund the MDIFW would expend a little effort and look into what has become of other state’s fish and game departments when they lost control, turned their work over to Environmentalism and renamed their departments, departments of conservation and environment.

Granted the MDIFW needs some changes, but not in the wrong direction. Moving it more toward the demands of Environmentalism isn’t a cure unless death is what you are seeking.

Share