March 21, 2018

The Continued Misrepresentation of Wildlife Watching

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Maine newspaper is, at best, misleading as well as selfishly hypocritical probably due mostly to ignorance.

In the Letter, the author says, “…about two-thirds more people come to this state every year to watch a live moose than to kill a moose…” I have my doubts that this person has any real data to support this claim but even if they did, the data would be inaccurate unless “you know a thing or two because you’ve seen a thing or two.”

I happen to know a thing a two about these statistics that claim that there are more wildlife watchers than hunters. Here’s how it works.

Yellowstone National Park is a prime and representative example of how “statistic prove that statistics can prove anything.” When visitors to the park are surveyed they are asked if they saw any wolves during their trip. Whether they did or didn’t matters not. The statistic they were seeking was to put this visitor down as someone who traveled to Yellowstone for the purpose of viewing a wolf. This way the data gatherers can drum up a number to support their wolf agendas.

Throughout the country similar surveys take place. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts similar surveys. When asking participants in a survey what they did and where they went, they were also asked if they saw wildlife. If they did, they automatically become designated wildlife watchers even if their intent was something else. What they don’t differentiate is the honest and complete demographics of the person being surveyed.

Another example would be when a person who happens to be a hunter is in the woods hunting for any game animal when asked if they saw other wildlife, they then become a statistic labeled as a wildlife watcher, not necessarily a hunter. Most people believe because it is what they have been wrongfully misled to believe, that there are hunters and there are wildlife watchers. I don’t know of any hunters who aren’t wildlife watchers. So, what percentage of the “two-thirds” are actually hunters, fishermen, and/or trappers?

I might tend to agree that there are more people who come to Maine in hopes of seeing a moose somewhere than come to moose hunt. That’s a no-brainer. Only 210 moose permits were issued to “those from away” for the 2016 moose hunt.

The author mentions that hunting licenses in Maine have been on the decline. That may be so but it should be as important to ask why that might be so. Is it because those potential hunters have become wildlife watchers instead? Is it because the hunting over the past decade or so in Maine has become so poor fewer want to spend the money or take the time off work to hunt when success rates are dropping faster than the number of licensed hunters? Or maybe it’s like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the number one reason for any reduction in hunting has to do with being able to get time off from work. So what does that suggest about the hunter? I’ll let you figure that out while you’re standing in the welfare hand-out line waiting to collect so you can go watch wildlife.

What’s also deliberately never spoken of is that if not for the efforts and money spent by hunters, there would be no moose watching or wildlife watching in general. And that is a fact that ALL hunters are extremely proud of. And we do that WITHOUT demanding that someone else change their lifestyle.

The author states a couple more grave errors deliberately attempting to influence public opinion. First, it is stated that if a constitutional amendment passed in Maine placing a “right to hunt” as part of the constitution, it “…would enshrine the right to hunt and fish into the Maine Constitution.” Whether intended by the author or not to mislead readers to believe that an amendment, as proposed, would give Maine citizens the protected right to hunt, fish and trap regardless of the goals and direction of the state’s wildlife management programs, use of the word “enshrine” certainly paints that picture. The proposal basically recognizes that hunting, fishing, and trapping are a scientifically proven method of managing wildlife populations to ensure their sustainability. It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Secondly, if such an amendment passed it would not eliminate the right of citizens to petition the state in regards to wildlife management.

However, at the root of all this, we clearly see the real problem. The author makes the bold and extremely inaccurate statement that “…the hunting and trapping special interests in this state view wildlife as their own private preserve rather than a public resource.” That is the biggest bag of horse manure that I am sick and tired of selfish, ignorant, Leftist, immoral degenerates stating.

Clearly, it is before the reader to understand that there is nowhere in the majority of the hunting, fishing, and trapping collective that believes they own wildlife or game. It is the opposite. For decades the left has spent millions of dollars doing everything they can to force their perverse, degenerate lifestyle onto the rest of us. And just like the spoiled rotten brats they are, when hunters, fishermen, and trappers take a necessary step to protect one small activity to stop the onslaught, we are painted as selfish people who think the resource is ours alone. That’s never been the case in a million years.

Hunters understand that part of what they do is to perpetuate wildlife and make it so that everyone can enjoy it. We know that doesn’t come without a price. We understand that at times reductions in hunting permits need to be made in order to responsibly manage game populations. We like it when game populations exceed goals and we can hunt them and eat them. We understand that when we purchase a hunting, fishing, and/or a trapping license, that money is going toward responsible wildlife management for everyone to enjoy. How can any of this be seen as believing we own the resource?

As a matter of fact, it is the complete opposite. Not only does this writer want to claim ownership of the resource, but wants to prohibit those of us who have worked for generations from being able to enjoy it in our own way. Instead, by the will of the writer, we are supposed to stop doing what we do because the writer doesn’t believe in it or doesn’t care to be a part of it.

So you tell me who is the selfish one here who thinks THEY own the resource. Maybe if this mixed-up and misled person and their ilk would stop trying to make us just like them, people in Maine wouldnt be trying to figure out how to stop them.

Utter leftist, selfish, psycho-babble!!!


Secretary Zinke Partners with ?Congress on Bipartisan Bill to Fix Our National Parks

Press Release from the Department of Interior:

Marks an important component of President Trump’s Infrastructure Framework for Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure

Last edited 3/7/2018

Date: March 7, 2018

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke joined U.S. Senator s Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Angus King (I-ME) , Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID), Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) and others to introduce a bipartisan bill to rebuild America’s National Park s. The proposed bill would use up to $18 billion in revenue derived from energy produced on federal lands and waters to establish a special fund within the Treasury specifically for “National Park Restoration”. The bill follows the blueprint laid out in Secretary Zinke and President Trump’s budget proposal, the Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. The Alexander/King bill’s cosponsors are: Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cory Gardner (R-CO) , and Thom Tillis (R-NC). This bill fulfills one of the priorities laid out in President Trump’s legislative framework for rebuilding America’s infrastructure.

” Infrastructure is an investment, not merely an expense. And every dollar we put in to rebuilding our parks, will help bolster the gateway communities that rely on park visitation for economic vitality. Since the early days of my confirmation, I’ve been talking with members of the House and Senate about how we can use energy revenue to rebuild and revitalize our parks and communities,” said U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke. “Infrastructure is also about access for all Americans. Not all visitors to our parks have the ability to hike with a 30-pound pack and camp in the wilderness miles away from utilities. In order for families with young kids , elderly grandparents , or persons with disabilities to enjoy the parks, we need to rebuild basic infrastructure like roads, trails, lodges, restrooms and visitors centers. This bill is the largest investment in National Parks in our nation’s history. This is not a republican or democrat issue, this is an American issue, and I think that the bipartisan body of lawmakers who put this bill forward is proof.”

“This legislation will help address the over $11 billion maintenance backlog at our national parks, including the $215 million backlog of projects in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,” Senator Alexander said. “The Great Smoky Mountains National Park is one of America’s greatest treasures – and it has a tremendous economic impact in East Tennessee, attracting nearly twice the visitors of any other national park. Addressing the maintenance backlog will help attract even more visitors and create more jobs for Tennesseans. We must continue to work together to find solutions to the many challenges facing our public lands, and this legislation takes an important step toward doing that.”

“Montanans are blessed to have America’s most beautiful national parks right outside our front doors,” said Senator Daines.“These critical economic drivers must be maintained and protected so that our outdoor economy can continue to grow and our parks remain accessible to all Montanans. This bipartisan bill is a commonsense step forward to ensure that the challenges facing our national parks are finally addressed.”

“For more than a century, our national parks have inspired and amazed countless visitors,” said Senator King. “Unfortunately, these parks don’t take care of themselves – they need maintenance to ensure that future generations can experience the same wonder that so many Americans already have. This bill is a practical step to help clear the existing maintenance backlog, and protect these treasured lands for years to come.”

“As someone who loves public lands and our National Parks, I am thrilled to be standing here today with Secretary Zinke, Senator Alexander, Senator King, and Congressman Schrader to propose a solution to fixing the backlog maintenance,” said Congressman Mike Simpson. “Growing up in Yellowstone’s backyard, it is important that we pay it forward to future visitors that deserve the same quality experience as past generations. There are many people who deserve credit for bringing this issue to the forefront and I look forward to working with them to advance legislation that fixes our Parks.”

“Oregonians have a genuine appreciation for the outdoors and our National Parks and recreation areas,” said Representative Schrader. “Our ability to enjoy and appreciate that natural beauty is limited when upkeep on our federal lands isn’t sufficiently funded allowing critical maintenance to fall by the wayside. Not only does that impact our enjoyment of the land, but it poses serious risks to the protection of these areas and hurts our communities that rely on the economic benefit from visitors. Currently, our national parks are in dire need of maintenance with a more than ten billion dollar backlog. Our bill provides an innovative solution by creating the National Park Restoration Fund which will provide mandatory funding from unutilized resources already available to us, to bring that backlog down and ensure our National Park System is well and safely kept for generations to come.”

The National Park Service estimates that its maintenance and repair backlog exceeds $11.6 billion. In 2017, 330 million people visited the 417 NPS sites across the country. The NPS completed over $650 million in maintenance and repair work in FY 2017, but aging facilities, high visitation, and resource constraints have kept the maintenance backlog between $11 billion and $12 billion since 2010.

Some examples of maintenance projects include:

  • ??Everglades National Park (Florida) – Showers, campgrounds and lodges that were destroyed during a hurricane more than a decade ago remain broken. Total Everglades maintenance backlog cost, more than $90 million.
  • Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (Indiana) – Earlier this month, an observation deck overlooking Lake Michigan crumbled and fell to the ground after years of erosion. Total Indiana Dunes maintenance backlog cost, more than $26 million.
  • Grand Canyon National Park (Arizona) – A pipeline, and the only infrastructure to deliver water to the South Rim Village of 19,634 people daily for drinking, cooking and firefighting, breaks several times a year putting the well-being of the community including park lodges, visitor centers, homes, and Grand Canyon hikers at risk. Total Grand Canyon maintenance backlog cost, more than $329 million.
  • ??Statue of Liberty National Monument (NY/NJ) – $34.45 million is needed to stabilize the Ellis Island Seawall, which protects Ellis Island from erosion of wave action. $3.77 million is also needed to rehabilitate the Fire-Life-Safety System in the Main Immigration Building, where 2.2 million annual visitors start and end their visit to the island. Total Statue of Liberty National Monument maintenance backlog cost, more than $166 million.

While National Parks have enjoyed historic visitation over the past few years, many Americans have never been to a NPS
site and are unfamiliar with what infrastructure they hold. Here’s a quick look at National Park Service infrastructure across the board:

  • More than 5,500 miles of paved roads
  • More than 1,700 bridges and tunnels
  • More than 17,000 miles of trails
  • More than 1,300 campgrounds
  • More than 24,000 buildings including more than 500 visitor centers, 425 park lodges and hotel buildings, 3,870 housing units and more than 3,700 bathrooms
  • More than 1,000 miles of water pipelines
  • More than 1,500 water systems
  • More than 1,800 wastewater systems
  • More than 500 electrical systems

Jerks in Florida Pass Ridiculous Anti-Second Amendment Bill in Knee-Jerk Fashion

Reinforcing the fact that people refuse to react unemotionally or learn anything from history, has reared up in Florida where legislators crucified the Second Amendment, my inalienable right to self-defense, gave out of control cops more power to confiscate guns from somebody they might not like, and placed power in the hands of government and government agencies to decide if someone is “mental.” What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps such fascist idiocy on display in Florida is the result of the fascist idiocy on display in Washington where lying, anti-gun President Trump said he supported taking away people’s guns and worrying about Due Process later.

All of this brings rushing back to me H.L. Mencken’s quote: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Need I remind readers that our local, state, and federal governments are made up “the American public?”

A total of $700 million dollars in funding is included in this fascist move with $470 million going to mental health issues alone. Briefly, the new law, unless vetoed by the governor, includes possible arming of some in schools – restricted to a very limited number and of those who might be eligible; establish a 3-day waiting period for the purchase of any gun; outlaws “bump-stocks” (and I doubt seriously they even know what one is); and raise the minimum age to be able to buy a gun to 21.


For those interested in the 105-page fascist bill that just passed 67-50, you can find SB7026 at this link. 


Deliberate Legal Jury-rigging in Maine’s Right to Hunt Proposal

At the onset of the discovery, one might ask how can any government entity be so damned stupid. But if we could only be honest with ourselves, we might just discover that the stupidity is deliberate, dishonest jury-rigging by some with the knowledge that the ignorant casting the votes don’t know the difference…or not.

I’ve often commented that we live in a “Post-Normal” world – down is up, left is right, black is white, etc. It is nothing new to discover that law proposals contain confusing language. I say confusing as it only applies to the lazy, automatons that don’t take time to read and understand what they are voting for. In many instances, it doesn’t matter anyway. Ballots will be cast according to how the representatives were told (threatened) to vote…or else.

Some in Maine have been trying to pass an amendment to the Maine Constitution sold as a means to guarantee a Maine citizen the right to hunt, trap, and fish. Even though I have said this effort comes years too late, it hasn’t stopped some from trying to get something passed even if it is mostly a worthless amendment. With each passing year, voters become more deeply brainwashed into the Environmentalism’s way of thinking, complete with animal perversion perpetuated by misguided scientism and an immoral, off-track society.

It now appears that the proposed vote on the amendment went to both the Maine House and Senate but was presented with different wording in each case. I.e in one instance a “yes” vote meant no and a “no” vote meant yes.

In a “clarification” sent out by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, it reads: “The majority report for the House is “ought not to pass”, a yes vote means you are against the constitutional amendment a no vote means the legislator was for the amendment.  Confusing I know. 

*The opposite is true for the Senate.  The motion in the Senate was the minority, ought to pass report.  A yes vote in the Senate is for the constitutional amendment.”

Deliberately confusing I would say.

Perhaps there is lots of stupidity to go around to the fact that someone(s) couldn’t do a better job with how a proposal was worded. And then again, maybe it was intended to be that way.

The truthful question is, who can be trusted anymore? Governments are worthless. Governments are corrupt – at all levels. And you put your faith and trust in them? Shame on you!

You decide whether this “failure” is due to ignorance, stupidity, laziness, ineptitude, corruption or a combination of any and all. One thing is certain, it didn’t have to be handled this way. Would the vote have been different? We may never know.

Shame on the many!!


Rural vs. Urban: The Growing Divide

It is often talked about how the “Red States” make up much of rural America and the “Blue States” are comprised of the urban dwellers. I know an entire book could be written about whether such a divide is a planned event or one of evolutionary happenstance. I’ll leave that debate for another time.

State by state we constantly hear of political and economic activities surrounding demographic differences. The reality of our existence shows that people of different ideology choose to live in areas best suited to them. This is a natural occurrence and the end result is a separation of oftentimes distinctly different cultures.

In what I believe to be a false paradigm of Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, or Democrat vs. Republican, the “True Believers” as they become more easily convinced of political and ideological values it fuels the fire which further inflames the anger and hatred associated with political and cultural differences.

The false paradigm is in the belief that one political party is actually separate and different from the other while looking out for your best interest. While one’s own conscience, character, and personality may give us our political and moral persuasions, it is a false belief that one political party operates autonomously and isn’t controlled by higher powers, nor are they interested in your’s or my best interest short of what it takes to steal your vote.

We can easily see the results of the efforts, programmed or otherwise, in the creation of a distinct divide in this country. Not only are we subjected to more outright verbal floggings and sometimes physical ones due to our political or cultural differences (I guess we can throw in religion as well) but the segregation or the desire for such is welling up, shown in different ways, within the several states.

Because these political and cultural differences exist, suggestions on how to deal with or find a solution to this problem vary considerably.

I have written in the past some about one particular issue in the State of Maine. David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has been pushing for several election cycles to change the process for public initiatives being placed on the ballot. The current process only requires a percentage of registered voters according to the number of ballots cast in the last election. These signatures can come from anywhere within the state boundaries.Trahan’s bill would require that the petition signature process obtain an equitable number of signatures from each of Maine’s two Congressional Districts -rural vs. urban.

Trahan, in testimony before the legislative committee, said, “For decades, many Mainers have argued that there are two Maine’s, North and South. Many in the North feel as though they have no voice in Augusta politics. In March of 2012, State Representative, Henry Joy of Crystal even proposed Legislation that would have allowed Aroostook, Piscataquis, Somerset, Franklin, Penobscot and parts of Washington, Hancock and Oxford counties to become their own State called Maine. Southern and coastal Maine would be renamed the state of Northern Massachusetts.”

It is no secret that the notion that “Many in the North” feel they have no voice in Augusta, is due to political and cultural differences based on a different value system. Historically, ballots cast in the State of Maine clearly reflect that there exists a distinct political difference between Northern Maine and Southern Maine.

Instead of Trahan calling for a secession from Maine by the North, he is actually suggesting one condition in which both “parties” are forced to seek out political and cultural adversaries as a means of accomplishing distinct political and cultural opposing proposals as a way of making things more equitable when it comes to the promotion of political and cultural dogma. Not only does one have to ask if this will accomplish what is intended in making the system more reasonable, but is it really possible?

Maine also has those proposing a constitutional amendment believed to guarantee and protect a Maine citizen’s right to hunt and fish. Regardless of whether you or I agree or disagree with such a constitutional reformation isn’t part of the point to be made here. What is the point is that conditions exist in this state where it is felt, due to political and cultural differences, that a threat exists because of one ideology opposing the other.

The majority of people who live in Northern Maine want to protect that right, while the majority of those to the South, find the need to protect that right as being unnecessary.

Do we then attempt to force one side to work with the other side by requiring an effort to place initiatives on the ballot, such as banning bear beating, to get a fair and honest representation of the state’s population, both north and south, or would it be better to create two states or some other remedy?

This dilemma is not endemic to the State of Maine. I was reading an opinion piece today in the USA Today Online. Written by Glenn Reynolds, he shares information about other states attempting to deal with these political, economic, and cultural differences.

Reynolds begins his piece with: “We’re starting to hear more about secession…wanting to separate from the population-dense urban areas that essentially control state decision-making…that they are governed by people in distant urban centers who know little, and care less, about their way of life.” 

This is the common theme throughout. I’ll guarantee it exists at some level in every state and perhaps every nation in the world. Can this be changed?

What is not so common is how to deal with it. In California, some are calling for a total secession and creating other distinct states. Others suggest turning the entire region into six separate zones, each recognizable due to their defined political, economic and cultural ideology.

New York is another example of how New York City seems to dominate and dictate all things to the remainder of the state, many of whom completely disagree with the rulings of the higher population.

We find the same problems in Washington State and Oregon, between the east and the west parts of each state, as well as in Illinois between the north and the south.

Is there an answer? Is this an idealistic pipe dream? Aren’t the suggestions of separation and secession nothing more than a reversal of ideology back to segregation? If so, then is segregation natural and more workable?

The author suggests some form of a stronger Federal Government presence that prohibits the states from making stricter laws than what the Feds mandate.

What could possibly go wrong?


Maine Legislature Approves Consideration of Four Fascist Bills They Claim Will Make Schools Safer

Right on cue, the knee-jerk jerkers in Maine are hard at it proposing worthless fascist-style bills, I suppose feeling the need to “do something.”

History is proving that nobody ever learns anything from history.

Here’s a peek at the four pieces of proposed legislation that made its way past the emergency bill standards of the Legislature.

One bill seeks a $20 million bond to be used to “make schools safer.” Yesterday I weighed in on that nonsense. All you need to do is simply trust your government. And how has that worked out for all of us so far?

A second bill, according to the Portland Press Herald, “…would set up a process for police to temporarily confiscate guns from a person whom a court has found to be a danger to the community.” Think about this for a moment. What could possibly go wrong? And do you want others more insane than you deciding whether or not you are a danger to “the” community? By whose standards will this claim of “danger” be based? This is fascism at its finest carried out and perpetuated by useless eater totalitarians. Just blindly, out of fear of government, cede all your rights away, is slavery in its purest form.

A third bill proposal, “…would seek to build community education programs to raise awareness of those who may be a danger to themselves or others.” Historically, the Vatican, and thus the infrastructure of the Catholic Church have always taught their followers to spy on other people and turn them in if they are not following the laws of their church. This proposal I see as no different.

Consider that this proposal would allow insane, brainwashed morons, to educate other brainwashed, insane morons how to recognize someone who is a “danger to themselves and others.” By someone’s standards, everyone can fit that description. Just look at the insanity that has prevailed since the presidential election. And, I must ask, who is mentally fit to educate others as to their own insanity? We have gone mad!!

And to further perpetuate the fascist nonsense by propping up and showing adoration for the mental health profession, a fourth bill will be considered that would give shrinks, with masters degrees or higher, access to loan forgiveness programs.

So the insane make the rules for the rest of us as to their industry’s standards of mental illness and mental normalcy, and Maine is considering propping up this industry that has proven to make us all even that much more insane, by paying off their debt so we can expect and eagerly await being forced to conform to the State’s standards of mental normalcy.

Smart! Real smart!


Maine’s LD11 – Fabricating Problems for a Predetermined Solution

It matters not to me in this rebuttal whether LD 11 passes or not. God knows I have worn out my keyboard over the years writing about the ups and downs and ins and outs of any and all constitutional amendments presented as a protective device to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish.

A recent Letter to the Editor writer expressed concern that passing such an amendment was, “a solution in search of a problem.” However, in an attempt to sell any readers of her theorizing, the writer creates a “problem” in search of a predefined solution.

The writer states: “In fact, LD 11 could actually create problems. Requiring that hunting and fishing be the “preferred means” of managing and controlling wildlife could limit local communities and our state wildlife agency from making sound, science-based decisions.

“What’s more, enshrining these activities in our Constitution would amount to an open invitation for poachers to exploit them to their advantage and could subject longstanding conservation laws to legal challenge from those arguing that this constitutional right exempts them from existing restrictions like bag limits or prohibitions on spotlight or road hunting.”

Depending upon the wording of a constitutional amendment, there exists the possibility that such an amendment could “limit” anti-hunting and animal rights groups from endless and frivolous lawsuits. That is often the nexus behind such proposals. But, understand there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING “sound and science-based” behind so-called wildlife management of today. One could honestly argue that the necessity for an amendment is necessary because to the admitted social nature of most decisions made about wildlife management, none of which are based on anything resembling science.

But, honestly, suggesting that a constitutional amendment would increase poaching while encouraging hunters to break the law and exceed bag limits, etc. is preposterous.

It is always entertaining to discover the fabrication of myths and fairy tales from those lacking in knowledge and/or cannot find any solid data to support their claims or to refute intelligently the reasons why Maine should not need a constitutional amendment.

Whether or not you are in support or opposition to proposed legislative and public initiative actions should be disseminated with facts not creations of one’s imagination.


Recovering America’s Wildlife Act Just Another Government Fraud?

Ammoland files a report about how the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources will take up discussion on the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. Passage would mean billions of dollars from royalties paid by gas and oil companies. Most applaud this measure believing it will be good for “conserving” fish and wildlife and access to recreational land, but will it?

The red flag that shot up for was this bit of text: “Our nation’s fish and wildlife are among its most valuable resources, along with clean air, water, healthy forests and agricultural lands that support all of us,” stated Virgil Moore, President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Director of Idaho Fish and Game. “Today we find ourselves at a critical crossroads and face a challenge that could alter our children’s and grandchildren’s opportunities to enjoy these resources. By investing in our State Wildlife Action Plans, which serve as a blueprint for restoring and managing the most sensitive imperiled species within our state’s borders, we will be ensuring future generations can enjoy our rich wildlife heritage.”

Note that there is not one single mention of the recreational acts of hunting, fishing, and trapping, And, you won’t read or hear about them either. Those pushing this fake act are doing it for the money and the furtherance of their agendas to ban hunting, fishing, and trapping. As a matter of fact, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies lobbied Congress a few years back in order that they can have a piece of the Pittman/Robertson and Dingell/Johnson Excise Tax, paid in large part by hunters, fishermen, and trappers, to promote their anti-hunting, non-consumptive, environmental programs that work completely contrary to the North American Model of Wildlife Management.

Support this bill if you want to, but I see it as a worthless bit of tripe that will pull the wool over the eyes of many, many hunters and fishermen. Isn’t that really what the goal is?

What future is there in funding an agency whose objective is to destroy your heritage?




Maine State Senator Davis: Lessen the Punishment for Hunting Over Bait

It’s a beginning I guess! Maine Senator Paul Davis has introduced LD 1816, an amendment that will lessen the punishment for hunting over bait.

Earlier this year, the Legislature, after making changes to a bill that came out of committee, passed LD 1083, that would, after a second offense, make the offender ineligible, for life, to buy a hunting license. No other similar legal offenses carry such draconian measures. Sen. Davis doesn’t believe “the punishment included in the new deer baiting law fits the crime.” I completely agree.

Now, what is it going to take to get the Maine Legislature to revisit the illegal law they passed last year where they opted to punish hunters and fisherman more than any other group if they were caught destroying private property – in this case, “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557 states that, “The hunting and fishing licenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled previously in cases involving “unconstitutional animus” that you cannot punish one group over another for a similar crime. While the SCOTUS has tiptoed around cases where state’s rights and “sovereignty” are involved, under no other cases decided by the SCOTUS have they wandered very far from the ruling that regardless of whether a state thinks it has a right to make laws, they cannot inflict biases, especially social ones, against one group over another.

As one example, in U.S. Department of Agriculture vs. Moreno, Congress attempted to pass a law that would deny “hippies” Food Stamp Benefits. Members of Congress openly admitted their intent of this law was because of their refusal to accept “hippies” as part of their idealistic social existence. Regardless, SCOTUS said no. This unconstitutional animus, in essence, violated Due Process.

I applaud Sen. Davis’ desire to correct a disparate law that hinders due process while at the same time targeting hunters, but someone in Augusta needs to step up to the plate and correct LD 557 that destroys the due process allowed under the U.S. Constitution through unconstitutional animus. All licensed hunters and fishermen should be incensed that the Maine Legislature would specifically and unequally target these two social groups for punishments that are held in reserve to other preferred groups.

If the Maine Legislature corrects this problem, as they should, they must then correct LD 557.


A Right to Hunt Amendment “Just Like The Second Amendment?”

A freelance outdoor writer and registered Maine guide, in his blog post at the Bangor Daily News, brings out some interesting points in support of a constitutional amendment billed as a guarantee of a Maine citizen’s right to hunt, trap and fish. In essence, he tells his readers that the legislative committee for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, who did not support the proposed constitutional amendment, caved into the demands of animal rights extremists and denied rural people the right to feed themselves and to make a living. All good points.

“I think many in the capitol area and urban enclaves see hunting and fishing as recreation or sport, and as such believe recreation and sport do not have the merit needed for constitutional tinkering. While that may be the case in Portland, Augusta or even Bangor, it most certainly is not the case for the people who live in the places the suburbanites come to recreate in.”<<<Read More>>>

Let’s look at a couple of issues brought up in the related article. The author brings up a good point when he writes: “…many in the capitol area and urban enclaves see hunting and fishing as recreation or sport..,” and, “…you are more likely than not to find locals fishing for white perch…than those fishing for a trophy-sized trout.”

Both points ever so true, but why? At least some of that blame can be placed squarely on the media, and I don’t mean the mainstream media necessarily. The major number of so-called outdoor writers bombard everyone through most forms of media with trophy hunting this and trophy fishing that. Is it any wonder the urban dweller only knows hunting and fishing as a trophy collection activity? It is always a breath of fresh air when writers, like the one at center stage, tells more of the truth of what hunting, trapping, and fishing are all about. And let’s not forget that surveys of hunters repeatedly state that the main reason for hunting is for food…NOT trophies.

The author points out that he believes the IFW Legislative Committee buckled to the pressures of the radical Left’s animal rights groups in turning their noses up at this proposal – “…you chose to serve the interests of anti-hunting, extremist organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States and WildWatch Maine…” 

The other day I wrote a piece in reference to the Committee’s rejection of the proposed amendment. In that piece, I point out what the chairman of the Committee said about his fear of what people might think if the proposal passed the Legislature and went to the voters and was defeated. He said it “would have a seriously negative impact.” We must ask ourselves the question as to how many other ballot initiatives, or even proposed bills, are given the same scrutiny, rooted in fear of reprisals and “negative impact.” It should alert readers that the author of the subject piece was precise when he said that the Committee, “chose to serve the interests of anti-hunting” organizations, for surely they did.

So let’s not go from the frying pan and into the fire! Regular readers here know that I have not had much support for the constitutional amendments for the right to hunt and fish in Maine due to the language of each proposal. It just doesn’t go far enough. In fact, the language suggests several things but does not guarantee anything. It might slow down the onslaught of anti-hunting law proposal but certainly will not end them. In addition, we see that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) doesn’t and won’t support this proposal and certainly would not support an amendment that should contain strong enough language that requires MDIFW to manage game species for the purpose of surplus harvest. LD 11 is the best written so far, but it’s just not enough. As the language gets tougher, the support by politicians dwindles. That should tell us something.

Consider when the writer states, “The text of the legislative document was concise, plainly written and made provisions to ensure that regulation and game law enforcement would not be compromised – much like the second amendment to the U.S. constitution. Gun owners must still abide by firearm laws, ordinances and regulations enacted by governments as allowed by the second amendment.”

It is impossible to have a legislative document that is “concise, plainly written,” that, on the one hand, guarantees anyone the right to anything, while at the same time makes provisions for regulations to limit that right. The author wants his readers to believe LD 11, the constitutional amendment for the right to hunt, trap, and fish in Maine, is “much like the Second Amendment.” Yikes. Isn’t what is wrong with the Second Amendment is that everyone has attacked it and turned it into something it was never intended to be?

I’m also not sure I understand what the author means when he says that the laws, ordinances, and regulations enacted by governments are “allowed by the second amendment.” The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, as written did NOT provide government to bastardize them into useless overregulated documents. We allowed government and their posses of useful idiots to trample all over the Second Amendment buying into the propaganda that such limitations of a natural right are reasonable.

How much more precise can a Bill of Right be to state, with no other qualifiers, that “the right of the people,” to keep and bear arms, “shall not be infringed?”

I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble here but as a citizen subject of the U.S. Corporation you DO NOT have a right to keep and bear arms “that shall not be infringed.” The Government and all useful idiots have mocked, spit on, trampled, changed, misinterpreted and utterly destroyed a right of the people, not like any other right, and as such keeping and bearing an arm has become a government-meted right that you can take advantage of if you follow their rules and regulations that severely limit what you can do and guarantees THEIR control over you.

I have to ask, therefore, why would we want a constitutional amendment to hunt, trap and fish if that right was “much like” the Second Amendment?

The author laments of his fears of being able to feed his family and support his livelihood as a Maine guide. I’m just not very sure LD 11 would take care of his fears. When we examine what has become of our Second Amendment is there any reason to believe that a watered down amendment at the onset, promoted as a guaranteed right, will last?

Not that it actually matters now, as more than likely the rejected-by-committee proposal will never see the floor of the Legislature, but we have to ask ourselves whether it is better to fight for the best wording in an amendment that actually has some teeth, and risk losing, or to fight for a watered down quasi-right that in the end will cause us to lose anyway?