April 1, 2020

Maine’s Proposed Transmission Line: Lying, Cheating, Stealing, Fraud and Hypocrisy

All governments and those criminal agencies who support and perpetuate fraud and deception in their common practices, sometimes get caught with horse manure on their hands. With dirty hands dripping with juicy dung, then the criminal politicians go to work to change existing laws that will, somehow, run in their favor – whether financially or garnering votes. Some things never change.

Central Maine Power (CMP) company wants to destroy a great deal of forest in Maine, some of which will be on Maine Public Land, to run a transmission line from a hydro project in Canada to supply electricity in Massachusetts, a state that irresponsibly neglects their own needs choosing instead to satisfy their wants via the destruction of others -typical of today.

I was reading this article in a Maine newspaper about a recent revelation that CMP seems to have already received permits to “lease” Maine Public Land, those permits, depending on whose lie is being perpetuated to get what they want, were issued as the perhaps the cart ahead of the horse scenario.

Who to believe?

The former director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, says that nobody told him about the Public Lands being used for a transmission line before he issued permits. But read what he was quoted as saying: “When I was working on it, I believed that it was for renewable energy and possibly windmills to be built in that region.” We’ll come back to this in a moment.

The former director also claims that by the time any application for land lease reached his office, it should have met all approvals by the Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. Did the director assume and didn’t bother to check? Aren’t there any checks and balances? Or does any of this matter anymore?

Any lease, according to this news report, is “…conditioned upon the project receiving a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity,” which CMP already has. Who issues this certificate and what was the criteria to get it?

Like with anything in this age of totalitarian head-bangers (spoiled brats) those opposing the transmission line, decided to craft a bill that would nullify the lease and require that any changes of use of the Public Lands be handled through the Legislature by a two-thirds majority vote. Is this how things are now done? Just make a new law voiding an older one without due process? Does CMP have a legal permit? Can a government simply nullify such a permit simply because they disagree with the proposed project? If so, what kind of trouble are Maine residents going to face with no assurance that any laws are any good anymore?

I don’t want the corridor either but I also place some kind of value on law and order which should give us slaves some sense of where they can go and how they can get there. This looks like a mess and that it got that way from a combination of greasy hands and typical criminal politics.

But, let’s return to the statement made by the former director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands, where he said, “When I was working on it, I believed that it was for renewable energy and possibly windmills to be built in that region.” From this statement, are we to believe that a lease was signed by the director of the Bureau of Parks and Lands (we don’t even know if this lease was issued legally or not) for Maine Public Lands to be used to erect windmills and that a lease wouldn’t have been issued for a transmission line? Shouldn’t the consideration for a lease on public land be considered for the amount of change of use and destruction any project would bring? Evidently, this lease decision was based on one’s belief about Climate Change and their personal perspectives on what is, or isn’t, “renewable energy.”

Below are a couple of pictures. One shows the destruction from the construction of windmills, the other an electrical transmission line. Is one of these less destructive than the other?

This is a clearcut which is but one small portion of the entire site where windmills were erected. What kind of forest destruction is there here? Is this how Mainers want their public lands used?
A typical Maine transmission line.

Are we then to assume that because a lease was granted to a company for one type of use over another, that one is more or less destructive than the other? It would seem to me that before any further nonsense with wind power and transmission line permits are granted, Maine residents need to ask a few more questions and get a few more honest answers.

Share

And Right on Cue, Out Come the “Balance of Nature” Scorpions

I knew that yesterday when I published a short piece about one Maine town planning on spending $27,000 to kill a handful of rabies-infected animals causing safety problems within the town, that the misguided and ill-informed masses would begin speaking out in protest of killing any animal. And here they come.

I apologize that I cannot give you a link because the story I read this morning was from a copy of the newsprint version.

Aside from the lies about nature being in balance and the need to protect rabies-infected animals, like foxes, skunks, and raccoons, nothing ever seems to change as people refuse to correct their ignorance and make decisions based on something other than emotional clap trap.

When you read foolish drivel like, “Everything is connected. When you take something out, you disrupt the whole balance,” one can only ask where do people get this terrible information from. And then I remember, it is the babble that is taught in our schools and perpetuated by the media.

I’ve been trying to educate the public for years about the intellectual rubbish of “Balance of Nature.” “Nature,” as most have grown to believe is some magical mystery tour, is a vicious and continuous cycle of positive and negative feedback loops. What that means to us simple folks is that it is always changing and most often is replete with wild fluctuations.

But, I digress in order to attempt to make some sort of sense out of who would, out of their self-acclaimed love affair with Nature, consider protecting the likely perpetuation of rabies, not only on the animals but the people who come in contact with them, in order to achieve a “balance” that does not exist? Do we exchange one disease for another based on preferred animal affections?

Rabies is a cyclical disease, as a reflection of the truth of the positive and negative feedback loops; some years there’s rabies, some years there’s not. It is basic information to understand that diseases are most often spread when there are too many of one group of animals – in this case the canines that carry the disease. This is a clear indication that there is no balance, otherwise there wouldn’t be any issues with numerous encounters between people and wild animals and the threat of disease. This is not a difficult concept to handle when observed away from an emotional attachment to animals, coupled with having been taught false information.

Believing that if left alone, the foxes, raccoons, and skunks, diseased or not, would solve the rodent problem that carries other ticks and diseases that transmit Lyme and other diseases, then believers of such rubbish surely should then believe that there is some magic formula that will take care of the foxes, raccoons, and skunks. So, why is there a problem of too many wild canines that are carrying rabies and threatening people, if nature was in balance?

And why do we pay good money to have fish and wildlife departments and federal departments to handle such threats from diseases that pose public safety issues? If “Nature” balanced itself, think of the money we could save.

If people understood the realities of “leaving nature alone,” they would know that, at times, it requires man to step in and responsibly take care of public health and safety issues…even if it means checking a population of animals to facilitate the resolve to an important problem.

It’s always easy to speak up for the protection of animals when these diseased animals aren’t in your backyard threatening you and your family. Have some sense. Ridding the community of a few rodent-eating varmints isn’t the end of their world. As is obvious, these animals will reproduce and come back, probably to threaten the neighborhoods again.

Take a Xanax and call me in the morning.

Share

$27,000 To Euthanize Possible Rabies-Infected Wildlife

A small city and area in the mid-coast region of Maine has announced plans to set out traps to catch animals that might be infected with rabies. Evidently, there have been several encounters between people and foxes and other critters that can carry rabies, and concerns are growing to the point town managers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) think something needs to be done.

Before I make my statement that is sure to piss off a great number of people, let me say that dealing with rabies in wild animals is a difficult task. There is no way of knowing whether any animal is rabid. The town feels they are at a point where they must kill off a percentage of the animals that can contract and spread rabies in order to reduce encounters with people. Even the USDA says this action has no guarantee to stop the spread of rabies.

So, here’s the insane part. It’s going to cost the town nearly $27,000 to put out 20 traps and check them for a period of 10 days. So what costs so much? That’s easy. Let me paste here exactly what one news report printed: “The traps will not be lethal or harm the animal, but every wild animal caught in the traps will be euthanized.”

This is insanity! Is there a reason, other than the trapping “will not be lethal or harm the animal,” that lethal traps can’t be used? The animals are going to be killed…period. Kill them, properly dispose of them, and be done with it. The bulk of the cost of “euthanizing” the captured animals is putting the animals down “humanely.”

I know, I know. But seriously. Think about it. $27,000 is going to be spent to kill how many animals?

I’m sorry. I just can’t help myself. I wasn’t raised that way.

Share

Is What We Are Being Told About Habitat Really True?

One has to wonder. I was reading this morning about issues with feeding whitetail deer in Maine. George Smith, outdoor writer, shares with his readers that: “A SAM [Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine] survey of our members in 2018 revealed that 26% had fed deer sometime during the previous 3 winters. That equates to about 2,000 feeding sites, just among SAM members!” This information, as I understand it, does not include data from food plots, i.e. those places around where people plant crops specifically to feed deer.

So, let’s say there are about 2,000 feeding sites across Maine each winter season. We don’t know the location of all these feeding stations and/or the ones that aren’t included in the SAM survey report. (Is it reasonable to think that there are more deer feeding sites from people who are NOT members of SAM?) Consider that there is a possibility that if there are feeding stations near each other, some feed lots are sharing the feeding of the same deer.

Regardless, can you guess what the average number of deer that are being fed per feed site? If I were to take a wild guess, I’ve seen some where at peak feeding time, it appears as many as 100 deer are chowing down. Back yard feed sites, might get around a dozen, maybe more and maybe less.

For argument sake, let’s say each of the 2,000 + deer feeding sites nourishes 30 deer (I think that might be conservative so bear with me). That would mean, excluding some deer that might move between two or more feeding sites, perhaps 60,000 deer are receiving supplemental nourishment they wouldn’t get if they were on their own.

If the 60,000+ deer receiving supplemental nourishment (and once again, this does not include summer food plots and those feed stations that SAM isn’t aware of) comprise at least one quarter, and perhaps one half, of the statewide deer population, and not having any scientific data on geographic locations, what is this activity doing to the survival and promotion of healthier deer throughout the state?

We are repeatedly told that during the harshest parts of the winter months, deer browse on stuff that is of little or no value as far as nutrition goes. The fiber ingested more or less fills an empty stomach. So, ask yourself whether or not the deer that are being fed are better nourished. If so, what does that mean for the long term for deer?

If you’ve ever watched deer interact at a feed station, you will notice that the bigger deer bully the smaller deer, such that the smaller, and less aggressive deer, get what’s left over. Biologists and others have stated that feed plots aren’t “fair” because of this natural dynamic. Shouldn’t we consider that whatever “scraps” the runts get is certainly more than they would get without food sites?

Have you ever been to a deer wintering area and observed the realities taking place there? One quite obvious dynamic is the neat trimming that takes place of the bows of trees in the lowest parts of the canopy. As winter progresses and the snow level rises, so too does the trim line at the lower parts of the trees. When the trees have all been trimmed that can more or less easily be reached, deer begin to stand up on the hind legs in order to reach the tree bows. This means the bigger (taller) deer get food and the runts don’t. According to the misguided thinking of some, this natural event wouldn’t be “fair” either.

What does happen then with a quarter, or more, of the total deer population in Maine getting “unnatural” food? Do these deer receive the necessary energy to help them survive those long harsh winters better? If so, to what extent is the increased survival affecting the mortality rate of the deer herd? Does this increased nutrition cause the fawn survival rate to go up? If so, how much? Is it skewing natural dynamics? Does this event send those biological triggers, often conveniently talked up by animal rights groups and predator advocates, that “cause” deer to produce more as part of their reproductive rates?

There are many things to be considered with this extent of deer feeding. Probably we are left with more questions than answer. However, when we consider what we are being told about habitat and deer mortality rates etc., we might be looking at two different consequences of deer feeding. One consequence might be that we are seeing more deer added each year to the total deer population, or perhaps at least in those areas where deer feeding is more concentrated. Are we? Have we received any word from the biologists in charge of deer management that the population is actually growing? Maybe word from observations from those who feed deer can tell us if they are feeding more deer each year. I would think they ought to know. Don’t they count them? Does the harvest data indicate that the population of deer might be going up?

If none of this is actually happening, then it would be sensible to ask just what the condition of the deer herd would be without any supplemental feeding.

If you think about all these things, then one has to wonder if law makers and game managers are making too big a deal out of feeding deer. Is it really hurting in any way? Yes, there are concerns over spreading of disease, but is there an equitable concern for disease and virus spread throughout the landscape of all wildlife? If Chronic Wasting Disease was found in Maine, I’m positive the state would immediately implement all necessary actions to curb the spread. Supplemental feeding isn’t going to cause CWD, but it might contribute to spreading the disease.

We should probably ask ourselves how significant changes in feed and habitat, quality and quantity, are to the management of our wildlife. Is it like we are being told?

I think supplemental feeding of at least one quarter of the total deer herd is significant. I also believe this activity has contributed to the survival and reproduction of more deer. With that said, what would the state of the deer herd be today without the years of supplemental feeding?

Share

Maine 2019 Deer Harvest With Big Buck Data

Below you will find a chart that shows the deer harvest in Maine since 1999. The chart gives readers comparisons based on the full data available since 2000, as a percentage or departure from data of 2000. In addition, the information provided gives the number of 200 lb+ bucks that were reported to the Maine Sportsman magazine. One thing such a comparison gives us is a peek into the big buck trends taking place across the state.

Thank you goes out to my good friend who does the work and compiles the chart.

Maine Deer Harvest Comparison Chart – 1999 – 2019
Share

Maine Bear Hunting Legislation Proposal LD1118

LD1118 is a revised bear hunting and trapping bill that has been unanimously approved by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) committee. It will now go to the full Legislature for action. The Legislature, in the recent past has failed miserably in accomplishing anything that would address the serious overpopulation of bears in the State of Maine.

LD1118 essentially gives the commissioner of MDIFW authority to set bear hunting and trapping seasons and bag limits according to the management needs and goals of the department. What could possibly go wrong?

The proposed bill would also lower the bear permit fee from $27 to $10 and this is a good thing. It still should revert back to the good ole days when having a Big Game License would include big game hunting, i.e. deer and bear. But it’s better than $27 dollars. Non residents would have to pay $74 for a bear hunting permit.

We’ll see if the animal lovers in the Maine Legislature will allow this bill to go through.

Share

Apply For a 2020 Maine Moose Lottery Permit

Using this online service you will be able to enter into the Maine Moose Permit Lottery. From the list of lottery applicants, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will administer a chance drawing to select winners for a Maine Moose Hunting Permit. To hunt moose in Maine, hunters must have one of these special Moose Hunting Permits.

Note: Apprentice licenses may NOT be used by a lottery winner to receive a permit.

Applications must be completed by 11:59 pm (ET) on May 14, 2020.

Moose Lottery drawing to be held in June 2020.

Share

Trickle-Down Nonsense of Moose Tick Infestations

This morning I was rereading a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) blog post about the department’s ongoing moose survival study. There is little hope that ever in my lifetime we will rid ourselves of the ignorant brainwashing that has caused a new religion of Climate Change Worship. I am left with the firm understanding that, beyond politics, the science of climate change, has been replaced with the Scientism of utter nonsense. There is no hope. Regardless of whatever reality is, whether natural or man-made, the inability to understand simple concepts has been bred out of this post-normal society. Such is the case within our wildlife management departments worldwide. All that is known is we’re all gonna die from Climate Change.

There’s nothing I can say or do that is going to have any influence on the epidemic that has overtaken this dystopian totalitarian existence.

But maybe there is hope to some degree…or not. The blog post of which I linked to above reads: “This increase in winter tick is a consequence of the changing climate, resulting in milder winters and creating a greater opportunity for tick survival.”

One of the problems with making this statement is that there are not enough studies done on winter ticks to be able to fully understand the survival rates and conditions. While fish and wildlife biologists, along with millions of climate change religious fanatics, are nothing more than echo chambers of what he said-she said, hand selected information, most of which is based on scientism (outcome based) and void of real science (truth), is used to prop up narratives and is rooted in unprovable propaganda.

Currently, there are just as many, perhaps even more, pieces of scholarship that tell us that “climate” really is not a strong enough factor to consider in tick survival. (But, as I say, Don’t go look!)

The echo chambers constantly repeat the tale that harsh winters (this from the standpoint of we don’t have harsh winters anymore, which is bunkum) will kill off ticks that cause mortality in moose. Harsh winters have come and gone and returned again, the same way they always have. Those who choose to believe false data about temperature changes, wrongly believe that normal cold winters (if we still had them, wink-wink) would take care of the tick problem. They fail to understand tick mortality and the relationship to temperatures and climate, even suggesting they don’t really understand the life cycle of the moose tick.

Consider the following…if at all possible. If Climate Change is a real factor (There is natural climate change. There is NOT man-caused climate change…at least not in the way it is being sold to the public.) and if Maine is indicative of the rest of the world, it has seen a minuscule increase in average year round temperature (perhaps a half a degree) in the past few decades, then which scenario do you think would have the most influence on tick proliferation and mortality – a temperature change of half a degree over several decades, or an increase in moose populations, directly proportional to the increase in ticks, of say 50% or more over the same period of time?

Because the political persuasion of Climate Change Religion has so poisoned the minds of good men, perhaps then the only hope will be some changes made to moose management that is secondary, or worse, to counter the invasion of Scientism.

If we read further on at the MDIFW blog, we can read the following: “With parasites and disease, higher moose population leads to greater chance of transfer, ultimately causing more death. Since calves have two critical periods in their lives to ensure survival, it is of high priority for MDIFW to find ways to help improve moose health. For this reason, the agency is considering methods of selectively lowering the moose population in certain parts of the state to decrease the chance for parasite and disease transfer, eventually leading to a healthier and higher quality population.”

What is extremely interesting in this approach is that this is something I have been harping at for years now, i.e. that we should recognize those factors that influence wildlife that we have no ability to control and focus on those things that we can. DUH!

As much as anyone wants to harp on Climate Change, there’s nothing we can do about it, short of an all out war on the worlds’ human population. Some believe a tax on carbon will do the job. I might suggest that first we take a look at the historic raping of the public of taxes for such things as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War on Education, etc. and do an honest assessment as to the status of those billion dollar (in taxes) programs and the yield on investment. Yeah, I thought so.

So, we can’t change the climate…no, really, we CANNOT change the climate. We don’t even understand it or what influences it. How are we ever going to change it? Or do we want to?

A warming climate has historically always been followed by periods of prosperity, growth, ample food supplies, etc. Carbon dioxide is an important and necessary component to our own health and prosperity.

If the climate in Maine is changing so much, as we are led to believe, that moose ticks are growing by the trillions as a result, then it only makes sense, as we are also told, that the southern fringe of natural moose habitat would be migrating north, and along with it the northern fringe of the whitetail deer population would be expanding north along with the retreating moose.

We know that the opposite is true. Maine’s deer population is struggling to survive north of say the East and West highway of U.S. Route 2. We also know that moose are expanding into southern regions of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts. This is all opposing the theories of Climate Change and the false claim that moose ticks are increasing due to Climate Change.

It is of some relief to see that at least in Maine, moose biologists are willing to attempt something beyond crying over Climate Change to improve the health of the moose herd. With open minds and a return to real wildlife science, biologists will soon learn, as others have before them, that the ONLY way to mitigate moose ticks is to reduce the population.

Let’s get on with it and put an end to this needless suffering.

Photo by Albert Ladd

Share

Buy Em Guns, Send Them to Hunt, and Then What?

I was reading Bob Humphrey’s recent article about making this year “The Year of the Hunter.” As I have come to expect, Bob Humphrey, one of Maine’s better outdoor writers, is always full of words that are constructive and positive, something perhaps I should take a lesson in. However, I am too strong a realist to be drawn so far away that I would find myself showing up to a birthday party that has no balloons, ice cream, and a cake.

Mr. Humphrey laments of the continuing decline in hunter participation. We tend to superficially putter along with suggestions of how to increase hunter participation, with perhaps not putting enough focus on the balloons and the birthday cake.

All of the writer’s suggestions make a lot of sense: recruitment, mentorship, apprenticeship licenses, involvement in “R3 Program” (recruit, retain, reactivate), controlling social media, improved landowner relationships, joining deer conservation and advocacy groups, and basically speaking out about the positive aspects of hunting.

While Humphrey sort of casually mentions, “Since 1988, the Quality Deer Management Association has promoted “sustainable, high-quality deer populations, wildlife habitats and ethical hunting experiences through research, education, advocacy and hunter recruitment.”

There are many groups of all variety of make-up that “promote sustainable, high-quality deer populations,” but what does promote mean? Are these groups forming because state-funded government fish and game departments are incapable of sustaining high-quality deer populations? Don’t we need our fish and game departments to go beyond marketing a not-so-good product…with a straight face no doubt? Fish and game departments should be the leaders not the followers of advocacy groups.

All dressed up for the party, with invitation in hand, and all the supporting propaganda telling me what a great party this is going to be, arriving at the party and finding no cake and ice cream means I won’t be hanging around for long, and will become gun shy (sorry) to return again.

All states’ deer hunting problems are different. All states are suffering some degree of hunter loss. With a dwindling population of hunters (I would bet with continued hunter loss those retaining an interest are more serious about what they do and thus will seek out those places where they have the best chance a bagging a “trophy.”), competition becomes real and it is a no-brainer that if the party has no cake and ice cream, the interest will continue to decline and Maine is removed from consideration as a destination hunting ground and interest within the state continues to shrink.

Yes, there are other problems too that contribute to the lack of interest, but an unsustainable, poor-quality deer population makes all other “recruitment, retentions, reactivation” efforts a bit of a futile effort.

People in Maine are a bit dishonestly led to believe that the deer population is “healthy” and that while numbers may not be at peak levels, there are plenty of deer to go around. It is when we honestly examine where the deer are concentrated we realize the majority of geographic and huntable areas, have deer densities that make it, let’s say, a poor product that is very difficult to promote “retention, recruitment, and reactivation.”

Back in October, I commented on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) efforts at promoting “R3” by recruiting some greenhorns and sticking them in a ground blind in the middle of a game preserve. Oddly enough, from a state that is not exactly all in with “canned hunting” they use canned hunting in an attempt to recruit new hunters. The question I asked is why didn’t the MDIFW put them in places where the rest of us are forced to hunt? The answer is simple. Sitting in a blind for hours on end seeing nothing, is like going to a birthday party with no cake and ice cream. Are you getting my point here?

Not that we should give up all the efforts that Mr. Humphrey and others have suggested to recruit more hunters, but retention and reactivation is going to be a very big task to accomplish unless those huntable regions of Maine grow more deer.

So, the big and obvious question is how do we grow more deer in Maine’s huntable and deerless regions? Let’s first begin with what we shouldn’t do. We shouldn’t use terrible excuses, like Climate Change and claiming there’s just as many deer now as there used to be – there may be but they aren’t where they can be hunted. If a warming climate, the most favorite of all excuses, was real, then Maine deer regions to the north would be seeing deer growth as the winters become less severe and the forests change. The news is they are not.

We need to work even harder with landowners, even the big ones, to protect deer wintering areas. But large predators growing at unchecked rates is a real problem. While some efforts have been undertaken to reduce coyote/wolf populations, more effort needs to be done. We eat deer. We don’t eat coyotes…at least not yet.

At the same time, serious efforts need to be taken to cut the black bear population down to “healthy” levels – healthy for the bears and healthy for deer. Bears are killing fawns soon after the fawning season, seriously cutting into fawn recruitment, making sustainable deer populations impossible.

The Maine Legislature needs to stop dawdling and caving to special interest groups, like guides and outfitters, and do what is best for all game populations, not necessarily bank accounts.

Consider what has changed since deer populations in many parts of the state have dwindled. In those same regions, black bear populations are growing out of control, coyote/wolf numbers are at all time highs, and moose numbers remain strong. Why is it that all that can be seen is finding fault with the Climate?

I don’t know of any hunters who seriously want to see the Big Woods of northern Maine teeming with deer. However, an increase from 1-3 deer per square mile, to 2-5 deer per square mile or even 3-6 might make a huge difference in accomplishing the 3 “Rs.”

If Maine is going to push this recruitment, retention, and reactivation thing, let’s lay the groundwork first to make sure we got the cake and ice cream. It sure would make all that work a lot easier. Who knows, if Maine had a terrific deer product to market…if you build it they will come?

Share

Hasn’t SAM Squandered Their Right to be Taken Seriously on Gun Rights?

The boogie man is coming to get you!! That is the message I get from reading a letter penned by the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), published on their Facebook page. (Note: I don’t have a link to that URL because I refuse to participate at any level with the totalitarian stiff necks (totalitarians) at Facebook. I was sent a copy of the letter.)

It doesn’t matter all that much whether what the executive director writes is true. What makes it difficult to swallow is his hypocrisy as well as ignorance. I say ignorance because I guess it would be better to be seen as ignorant that smart enough to know how two-faced you might be and yet pretend you are in the clear. Ignorance can be corrected…but one must be willing.

This attack on SAM, more specifically the executive director of whom I have called for his resignation, is because of efforts by SAM, the Maine Chapter of the NRA, and Gun Owner’s of Maine, crawling in bed with the very “progressives” that are being attacked by the executive director for seeking to confiscate guns.

Trahan writes: “National and State Progressive groups, many hostile (sic) to firearm rights, fueled by seething anger, toward our President are energized, organized and better funded than any time in history.”

I wonder if the executive director has given much thought to the idea that perhaps also fueling these bad-ass “progressives” was SAM’s, the NRA’s, and GoM’s, work to destroy Maine citizens’ constitutional rights when they created an unconstitutional “Red Flag” gun confiscation act? It would seem to me that “progressives” like Bloomberg, Soros, Collins, and Trahan would be emboldened to know that the largest supporter of gun rights in the state willingly squandered what little power they had left to save our gun rights. This action by these so-called gun rights groups sure kicked the door open, and in essence rolled out the red carpet for a formal invitation to come and complete the gun rights destruction SAM, NRA, and GoM started.

I could have said I told you so but would SAM have listened? NOPE! They didn’t listen when so many of their members wanted to know what in the hell was going on with not only supporting “Red Flag” laws but writing one of their own.

What is laughable is that the executive director writes in his letter: “In the not too distant past, as Mayor of New York he (Bloomberg) instituted the “stop and frisk” policy that allowed officers to stop city residents and search them randomly for weapons.”

So tell us, Mr. Executive Director, how is Michael Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” policy so “unconstitutional,” when your own order to confiscate the guns of any considered “a danger” (from whose perspective? Yours, Bloomberg’s, Soros’) so warm and cuddly?

The executive director suggests that the “only thing” we (We? Does he mean himself? I hope not.) can do is “educate ourselves and our friends.” And what is it we are going to teach them? Maybe he means those bad-ass “progressives” who want your hard earned money to steal away our rights, while he pitches his own readers for money.

Some might get this entire attack on the executive director as coming from a “progressive.” Sorry! Such is far from the case. You see, I don’t like to dress myself up to be one of those phony republicans or democrats, or any other fake label. I like my freedom. I like to be left alone. I like to be able to make my own choices including those of gun ownership. I don’t need people like the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, telling me; “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to take you guns. We’ll sort it out later. In the meantime, prison ain’t so bad.”

Nope! I have a right to arm myself, if I choose. Nobody is going to change that. And yes, David Trahan has a right to craft any totalitarian law he sees fit – constitution is damned. However, it is hypocritical ignorance to tell Maine citizens it’s raining out (as he pisses on your boots) and then turns around and somehow tries to make out that Bloomberg and Soros and bad-ass progressives that have come to take your guns away.

I wonder if SAM, the NRA, or GoM even thought about the “trickle down” effect of the clumpy sewer they stirred up; that it would jump right back up and bite them square in the face?

I don’t think so.

If you cherish real gun rights, dump the executive director of SAM and then, with some straight forward intestinal fortitude, tell Bloomberg and Soros to go to hell.

Share