April 20, 2018

MDIFW Says Some Waters Have Too Many Fish

I was reading MDIFW’s fish biologist, Tim Obrey’s, article about readjusting fishing regulations to match management goals. He writes some interesting things. Here’s a sampling of some of his comments he made:

“I used to cringe the Monday of Memorial Day Weekend seeing the steady stream of traffic heading south all loaded with fish (in my mind anyway) from my favorite trout ponds. Back then, we frequently crafted more restrictive regulations to limit harvest to protect the wild fish resources. It was rare to liberalize regulations.”

“But now, things are much different.”

“…fewer people are fishing and those that do practice catch and release at a much higher rate…”

“The combination of a sharp decline in angler harvest and the very restrictive regulations created a perfect storm for salmon management.  The salmon began to stockpile because there was little harvest.”

“We attempted to alleviate the situation by liberalizing the salmon regulations, but with little success.”

“This situation is very similar to the problems we had at Moosehead Lake with an over-abundant lake trout population.  It took some serious regulation changes at Moosehead Lake to reverse the trend and we are looking at similar strategies for Chesuncook Lake.”

It seems that tactics employed at Moosehead Lake are being tried on Chesuncook Lake with no success yet. At the end of this article, an invitation is extended to fishermen to come to Chesuncook Lake and participate in a fishing derby designed to work at reducing the number of small salmon. Will it work?

Upon a bit of examination, I would have to say I have my doubts.

First of all, when something changes there has to be a reason. In this case, Mr. Obrey seems to believe it is because people just aren’t going there to fish. Why? Does the fishing suck? Is it cost prohibitive? Is there good access to the fishing resource? Are fishing licenses too expensive? Is there that much of a decline, if there is one, in overall purchases of fishing licenses? If all waters in Maine are not having these problems, then there must be enough anglers that current regulations are sufficient to manage the resource. Why these selected lakes?

I don’t have all these answers but I was pointed in the direction of one thing that might be a roadblock to Chesuncook Lake.

On a website called Great Northern Vacation, under Lodging, we can find a bit of information on the Chesuncook Lake House Cabins, a historic location for anglers, hunters and all sorts of outdoor explorers. But here’s what it says: We strongly recommend that you arrive by float plane, your boat or snowmobile.

A new road to Chesuncook!?? Unfortunately, the new road is in horrible condition, unkept and dangerous. Many guests have arrived unhappy with the high Northwoods gate fees ($40+ pp), flat tires, getting lost, (don’t depend on your Tom-tom) and it’s not a pleasant start to your stay here. Please consider getting here in the traditional fashion, don’t drive in. Your car and wallet will thank you. Your mechanic will not!”
So, the invitation is out to attend a fishing derby at Chesuncook Lake. Is the fact that access appears to be quite difficult, along with exorbitant gate fees, enough to not only deter participants from a fishing derby but do nothing to help cure the fisheries management problems?
Environmentalists should take notice, along with MDIFW biologists and wildlife managers. It appears you want your cake and to eat it as well. Environmentalists bitch and complain because logging roads being built destroy the “wilderness.” At the same time, wildlife biologists readily use too much access to hunting and fishing resources as an excuse for unsuccessfully reaching management goals. And now, we see where at least one lake in Northern Maine can’t properly (by MDIFW’s standards) manage the fishery because people can’t get to the lake in a reasonable fashion to fish.
So, what’s it going to be? Cave to the demands of environmentalists who want to end the logging industry, thus allowing access roads that belong to the logging companies to deteriorate to a point of impassability, resulting in wasted and destroyed wildlife resources, or find a balance somewhere where everyone benefits?
Share

Tricking a Gorby May Prove Fatal

The Bangor Daily News carried a piece by Bob Duchesne who wondered if it was possible to train a Gorby (Canada Jay) to kill and eat winter ticks off the back of moose: “…could gray jays be trained to eat ticks? In a controlled experiment where jays were given the choice between eating bread or a fat, juicy, engorged tick, the jays chose the tick every time. What would happen if you brought a stuffed moose into the woods, sprinkled some bread and engorged ticks on the haunches, and called in the jays? Would they learn to eat ticks off moose, and teach others to do it?”

It all sounds a bit romantic…perhaps a bit ludicrous. You see, not everyone knows that there is more to a Gorby than wondering whether or not you can train one to eat ticks off a moose’s back.

A Gorby can develop trust in a man. If a man betrays that trust, according to Maine humorist Joe Perham, terrible things can happen. In the story told by Perham, a lumberjack of years gone by betrayed the trust of a Gorby and come morning, his hair and teeth fell out.

To “trick” a Gorby into believing a stuffed moose with transplanted ticks devised as a training mechanism, might be a violation of trust and thus there is no telling what might become of someone who tried.

Purchase this CD.

Share

Maine’s Legislature Overrides LePage’s Anti-Hunting Veto

How much clearer do you send a message to the governor than to override his veto in both houses with unanimous votes? Such was the case in Maine as the Legislature by votes of 33-0 in the Senate and 148-0 in the House overrode Governor LePage’s veto of bill LD 1816.

If you recall I recently made comments on two bills that the governor signed his veto to – LD 1816 and LD 1823.

LD 1816 was more of a discriminatory bill than anti-hunting. This issue stems from making laws to stop illegal baiting of deer for hunting purposes. The initial passage of a bill aimed at addressing this concern came last year when the Legislature passed LD 1083. In that bill, the punishment for a second offense of hunting over bait required a lifetime loss of hunting privileges. Some, like Sen. Davis, believed that punishment to be beyond the scope of the severity of the crime and wished to amend that bill to make a second-offense punish a two-year license loss. LD 1816 passed both houses but the governor vetoed it. The vote to override was unanimous.

In my comments about LePage’s veto I wrote: “Until such time as Maine can get their act together to better lay out the exact definition of “bait” and at the same time rid the conflicts between growing “crops” and hunting over those and hunting over bait placed by a hunter – as though growing a crop to hunt over is any different than dumping a bag of apples under a tree stand – I cannot agree with LePage’s veto of this bill.”

Senator Paul Davis was quoted in the Piscataquis Observer that: “The fact of the matter is, deer baiting laws only really apply to hunters who don’t have the economic means to purchase land and manage for crops that attract deer. It is perfectly legal to hunt over a crop, yet it is illegal to hunt deer over a pile of apples. This discrepancy in Maine law treats some hunters differently than others, and I don’t believe that it is fair. That’s why I feel strongly that this crime shouldn’t carry a more severe penalty than other crimes that are much worse, such as hunting game out of season or illegal night hunting.”

Now perhaps it is time for some Maine politician(s) to do the right thing and step forward to change the recent law (LD 557) passed that wrongly punishes hunters more than all others for the same crime. Unconstitutional Animus, or a serious violation of equal protection under the law, does not permit a more severe punish against one group over another. Last June (2017) I wrote: “I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case, a hunter or fisherman is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.”

The Maine legislature has righted one wrong in bringing the punishment for hunting over bait back to something more sensible. They still need to clear up the contradictions and definitions between hunting over a crop and hunting over a bait pile.

Now if they can straighten out this ridiculous discriminatory law that targets hunters for greater punishment than all other groups, things would be better off.

Share

When Totalitarians Steal Your Presumed Land Rights

Perhaps the first mistake of mind is a false understanding that you, as an individual, are part of “We the People” as found in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was constructed for “We the People”; that is owners or shareholders of the corporation called the United States and from that point passed on down to their posterity as is mentioned in that constitution. Individual states signed on to the corporation and became legal participants. Each time you sign your name to any legal document of the state, you are agreeing and willing to abide by the terms of that corporation. In short, you only have rights as are meted out by the corporation, including land ownership. The corporation permits you to carry out other functions as a benefit to them, not to you.

A tough pill to swallow.

Because from birth we are brainwashed to think we live in a free “democratic” country, where “We the People” are “you the people” you think you have power over others simply by finding more voters to go against their “freedoms.” Believing that a democratic rule is somehow American (being defined as the majority so desires) and serving as the useful idiots for the posterity of “We the People” corporate rulers, our mostly false understanding of democracy has quickly morphed into a totalitarian rule accomplished by years of mind manipulation. In layman’s terms – tying the noose that will ultimately hang you.

We live in a society that seems empowered to force the idealism of enough people onto others regardless of any perceived rights. What makes totalitarianism successful is the ability of the centralized system of government and their controllers to indoctrinate the masses into certain beliefs and attitudes. Once a dictatorial, centralized government has molded the minds of non-thinking people, those people are used to do the bidding for the government in power. It works marvelously!

We can see all this in action wherever we go if we understand the reality and look for it. Few do or care.

Yesterday I was reading an article, several actually, about how the Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) is considering modifying their controls and regulations that could allow for greater development of lands that fall under the government control of the LUPC, i.e. “unorganized townships.”

Useful idiots for a centralized government, ignorant totalitarians, one day decided what their ideal desires were for someone else’s private land. Yeah, that’s right. You see, nobody owns land. We may hold a “tenants in common” deed, that grants us the privilege to pay tribute to the governments in control, under their very strict regulations, but when push comes to shove we are helpless. There may come a time when the government decides they have need of your land and so take it with little recourse to you.

To help accomplish the wishes of centralized government, “education” programs are established that are designed to tell us what it is we want. So-called “change agents” of centralized government go out into the community and using powerful tactics designed from a firm understanding of man’s nature and ease of mind manipulation, convince other people of what society should be like and all aspects that make up our surroundings. With a majority support of the useful idiots, most anything can be accomplished while causing people to believe it is democracy in action.

One of those bits of idealism involves a “vision” of what communities and private land should be. And thus was born the Land Use Planning Commission, or whatever the name of your state’s dictatorial land use organization is called, in order that land use falls within the ideological bounds of brainwashed citizens.

I never hear anyone ask why there is such a commission…never. It also seems that the only time private citizens have much to say about the fascist form of dictatorial rule is when that rule directly effects them – if they can even recognize it. Aside from that, it is always the brainwashed, ignorant totalitarians who demand that you conform to the strict regulations of the LUPC in order that you can have your ideal, protected, isolated fantasy that someone else is paying for.

Ignorant totalitarians care not whether a person or a corporation has invested heavily in any property for purposes of providing a product to consumers, and yes, for profit, they have been convinced that it is imperative that all that land be locked up in order to fit their idealism.

This is totalitarianism at its best, carried out and perpetuated by non-thinkers who believe their democracy provides them the power to steal away the rights and lifestyle of all others.

I was reading another piece of work called, “Forging a Common Vision for Maine’s North Woods.” Think about that title for a moment. Why is it so important to these robotic destroyers of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that they forge a “common vision” (communism) of what doesn’t even belong to them? Who do we think we are? What have we become?

Hidden within the disguise of protection, while never hinting at the perpetuation of one’s idealist social agenda, we can read about the effort of “forging a common vision.”

Efforts to protect the working landscapes and rural communities of northern Maine could benefit from a broader, more comprehensive view of the region and its challenges. Indeed, forest fragmentation, parcelization, sprawl, and rural economic development all transcend municipal and county jurisdictions, and suggest the need for a regional or landscape-level approach (Foster 2001). This approach should identify and strengthen the region’s ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets, and place these within the larger context of Maine, New England, the Maritime Provinces, and beyond.

Who says? Millions and millions of dollars of somebody’s money have been invested in millions of acres of land in Maine and these totalitarians, lying and hiding behind protection, feel entitled to dictate to those landowners just exactly what they can and cannot do with their land in order that it fits into their “ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets” so that it nicely fits within the totalitarian landscape of the broader region. Does that mean make Maine like Massachusetts or does that mean lock up all the land in Maine so that those in Massachusetts can have Maine as their idealistic playground?

But what of the future? It appears that the ignorant totalitarians bent on their own demise by placing full control over property in the hands of a centralized, socialistic government fail to realize the loss of that important monetary tribute the joint tenant is permitted to cede to government. That money serves to further carry out and perpetuate the power and control of the centralized government and yet once the landowners decide their tribute far exceeds the benefits they could realize from their investment, they will give up that land and into whose hands and control will in then fall? Will it become the full control of the corporate United States or the corporate state’s where the land is located? Perhaps it will be turned over to non-tax-paying land trusts or the like, always eager to do the bidding of central government.

Totalitarians want what they want. Do they really know what they are doing? I don’t think so, but the idealism behind the push is overwhelming to them.

There once was a day when land ownership was the creme del a creme. Today, with so little left that a person can do with land, is it any longer worth the investment?

Then what?

Share

Maine Governor Vetoes Two Hunting Related Bills

Maine Governor Paul LePage has vetoed two hunting-related bills – LD 1816 and LD 1823.

LD 1816 is a bill that would reduce the second offense penalty for hunting deer over bait from a lifetime license ban back to a two-year suspension. Here is the statement Governor LePage made public for his reason for vetoing the new bill.

LD 1816

Governor LePage cited a reason for keeping the lifetime license suspension as punishment for a second offense as being a strong deterrent to stop illegal hunting of deer over bait. With unclear definitions as to what determines “bait”, it would appear that abuse by law enforcement and the courts could make for as much trouble as the handful of those charged with hunting over bait now.

Until such time as Maine can get their act together to better lay out the exact definition of “bait” and at the same time rid the conflicts between growing “crops” and hunting over those and hunting over bait placed by a hunter – as though growing a crop to hunt over is any different than dumping a bag of apples under a tree stand – I cannot agree with LePage’s veto of this bill.

It would appear that while it may be a strong deterrent, the punishment may not fit the crime when comparatives are made with all laws and punishments in Maine.

LD 1823 is a bill that made permanent a temporary law that allowed nonresidents to hunt on the “Residents Only” Saturday prior to the open season on deer, provided that nonresident owned at least 25 acres of land in the state. Here is the Governor’s reason for the veto.

LD 1823

I never liked the bill in the first place. While it seems a good thing to make hunting opportunity available whenever possible, this kind of legislation simply reeks of preferred treatment, discrimination, and elitism.

Hunting should never be meted out in any fashion when determined by social status. Simply because a person is wealthy enough, or through inheritance, to own land equalling at least 25 acres shouldn’t give them privilege over someone else who doesn’t.

While LePage believes the Residents Day Only is special for Maine residents and should remain that way, consideration of making it also open to nonresidents should be all or nothing.

Let the discriminatory bill sunset. The veto was good.

Share

Meta-Analysis, Coyotes, and Lyme Disease

Recently I had posted a link to a “study” conducted at Pepperdine University about the diet of Northeastern coyotes, compared to Western coyotes’ and a possible link to the spread and/or perpetuation of Lyme Disease in the Northeast.

On March 4, 2018, I wrote an article sharing, in part, the publisher of Maine Sportsman Magazine, Jon Lund’s, observation that the increased population of coyotes in Maine was causing an increase in Lyme Disease-carrying ticks which in turn was the cause of up-turns in the incidences of the disease. I wrote: “In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.”

According to the Meta-Analysis linked to, their conclusions do not support Lund’s theory. While I only have the Abstract of the study, I can only provide what is written there. But first, let me explain something in case readers don’t know what a meta-analysis is. A meta-analysis is “a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies.” (Source)

In this instance, scientists simple took data from 18 different studies about coyote diet and determined that while coyotes in the Northeast readily ate more deer, they proportionately did not eat more or less small predators (like the fox that Lund claims eat the rodents that carry the Lyme tick). The Abstract states: “Our results show that deer occur significantly more in the diet of Northeastern coyotes than in the diet of Midwestern coyotes, while small mammals occur significantly less. The occurrence of rabbits, hares, birds, vegetation, and fruit do not differ significantly by region. This supports the hypothesis that Northeastern coyotes, due to their larger size and hybridization with wolves, are better adapted at hunting large prey. Although Northeastern coyotes eat fewer small mammals than Midwestern coyotes, small mammals are still a common component of the Northeastern coyote diet. Thus the abundance of Northeastern coyotes is not likely to be positively correlated to the incidence of Lyme disease.”

It’s worth pointing out a few things. Again I’ll state that I don’t have access to the full study, however, there does seem to be some degree of contradiction but that contradiction may be insignificant.

Second, it appears from this information that because the Northeastern coyote eats far more deer, due mostly in size and cross-breeding with wolves, it may be due to a bigger appetite because the animal was bigger than the Western coyote. A conclusion on my part.

Third, this information clearly states that Northeastern coyotes eat fewer small mammals than their Western counterparts, but evidently not enough to make any sort of difference.

Fourth, this study concludes that it is “not likely” fewer small mammals consumed “positively correlated to the incidence of Lyme disease.”

It would appear that this analysis has only proven that Northeastern coyotes eat more deer than Western coyotes.

There is nothing conclusive, that I can see, that the presence of an increased population of coyotes has no effect on Lyme ticks.

Do any of the studies have data that go back to a time before the “Eastern coyote” became an invasive species? Have any of these studies taken place in long enough periods of time to take into account a changing coyote diet due to changing conditions on the ground? In other words, depending on conditions on the ground, a coyotes’ diet can have large fluctuations in amount and prey diet. Are these factored in? Will a changing diet also change the incidence of Lyme disease?

There are a lot of questions that remain unanswered. Because of this meta-analysis, I wouldn’t be too quick to disregard Jon Lund’s hypothesis about the direct correlation between coyotes and Lyme disease.

What got along superbly before the invasive species arrived. I would surmise we could get along marvelously without them now.

 

Share

National Support the Second Amendment Rally

Share

Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions

Yesterday I posted a notice about the intent of Maine lawmakers to introduce a bill disguised as a “Community Protection Order” that will “Prevent High-Risk Individuals” from possessing firearms.

Some may say the intent of the proposed legislation is a good idea and perhaps that is true to some extent. A serious argument can be made as to whether such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment as well as Due Process.

But forget about that for a moment.

Much of the problem with any of these laws is that interpretations of definitions are left up to a court and the arguments of lawyers. That, in and of itself, should alert us immediately to serious problems.

The crux of this proposed legislation is centered around “mental illness” and/or a person’s propensity toward violent and emotional behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of these conditions is a matter of a person’s perspective. Do we really want to limit Due Process based on the perspective of a judge?

LD 1884, is the Maine proposed bill which is the matter of topic. I’ll go ahead and post what this legislation uses for “definitions” to help understand the intent of the law and offer comments after.

§ 401.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1.  Community protection order.   “Community protection order” means a written order signed by the court that prohibits and enjoins temporarily, if issued pursuant to subchapter 2, or on an extended basis, if issued pursuant to subchapter 3, a named individual from having a firearm in that individual’s custody or control or owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.
2.  Family or household member.   “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.
3.  High-risk individual.   “High-risk individual” means an individual who presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual and:

A.  Has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication but has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or
B.  Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual for the purposes of this chapter. As used in this subsection, “mental illness” has the same meaning as in section 3318-A, subsection 1, paragraph B.

4.  Restrained individual.   “Restrained individual” means an individual who is the subject of a community protection order.
Community Protection Order – Of note here is that this order can be issued in one of two ways – either as a temporary order by a court that has determined that an individual fits the bill’s criteria of being barred from having anything to do with a gun, or the same conditions on an extended basis once again according to the interpretation of the court of Subchapters 2 and 3.
The title of this order is designed to mislead the public into thinking this is the will of the “community” a communistic term and that it is for the purpose of keeping that “community” safe from those with a “mental illness.” After all, all those with a “mental illness” are mass murderers…right?
High-Risk Individual – This is where things get really dicey. A “High-Risk Individual” is here defined as someone who a judge thinks (his perspective of course because there are no real definitions for this condition) is going to hurt himself or another person. In addition to this perceived condition, this person has a “mental illness” – again an interpretation based on biased training or thinking/ideology. Once a court decides for themselves a person has a mental illness they must then decide whether they think this person has been taking their medications as prescribed by some quack doctor.
The suggestion here is that if a judge, having decided you have a “mental” condition, deems that you haven’t demonstrated “a pattern of voluntarily and consistently” taking your pills you lose your right to self-protection and due process.
Part B of this section is a real doozy! If it is shown “through evidence” (wink-wink) that actions by any person with a court’s definition of mental illness can show a “reasonable belief” that such a person has a disposition toward “violent or emotionally unstable conduct,” then they will be issued a Community Protection Order – perhaps ostracized for life.
The real joke is when the authors of the bill attempt to mislead the voters by saying just because a person has a mental illness, and has been “released from” a nut house, so long as they are being good brain-dead zombies and taking their chemicals, doesn’t necessarily mean they are a threat to the valued “community.” RIGHT!
History has shown us that it is most often a needless task to keep “mentally ill” people institutionalized and pumped up or down with chemicals and is a drain to that valued community, so they are gathered up and murdered. After all, these valued communities cannot be bogged down and given bad images from anyone with a “mental illness.” They MIGHT pose a threat, real or imagined, to their way of life. Society decides who lives and who dies.
Restrained Individual – Once you have met all the criteria that the “Community” has determined using their own standards of measurements, including societal tolerances, political ideology, and in general operation under the fear instilled in them by actions of a fascist governmental regime, the lucky winner becomes labeled as a “Restrained Individual.” How fortunate.
Whether you agree with the intent of the proposed bill or not shouldn’t matter once you consider how such fascist laws, put into play by willing and eager totalitarians, are a serious threat to any society that still deems itself to be free.
Giving power to the Courts and to governments to make decisions based on highly abstract and illusory definitions is quite akin to National Socialism. If you don’t fully comprehend National Socialism then you haven’t been paying very close attention.
There are channels that already exist in which efforts to control a deranged person from committing mass murder. If the information given to the public about the shooting in Parkland, Florida is at all truthful, then the lesson to walk away with is that those with authority to have intervened failed in their jobs. Insanity tells us to make more fascist laws that will not and cannot be enforced will somehow make a difference.
But this problem is not endemic to Maine. Since the Parkland, Florida shooting many state governments and the Federal government have proposed laws that are similar that leave the interpretation of what determines a mental illness, propensity to violence, or emotional unstableness up to the courts and the governments. Even fake Second Amendment advocates have stood firmly behind such insane legislation.
With each passing day, it amazes me more and more the eagerness of totalitarian useful idiots to help tie the noose that will one day be their demise. In the days of Marx and Stalin, when these two were finished using those that helped bring them to power, they just murdered them to get them out of their way.
So what’s happening to you today?
Share

ACTION ALERT: GUN CONFISCATION BILL PUBLIC HEARING

Sen. Dion’s so-called “Community Protection Order” bill, LD 1884, will have a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 3, at 1:00 PM in Room 438.

This bill gives law enforcement, disgruntled former spouses or domestic partners, and even anyone who claims to ever have been a sexual partner, the power to ask a judge to order that all of your firearms be *immediately* confiscated by police without prior notice; the first you will know of the order will be when the police knock on your door to demand your guns.

This bill has many problems, and is a close copy of bills that have been pressed by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg in multiple states. Anti-gun forces sense an opportunity to pass this bill in the heat of the astroturf outrage they have fomented over the last few weeks. We cannot allow this dangerous bill to advance.

We need you to show up in Augusta on April 3rd to be seen and make your voice heard before the Judiciary Committee. We need as many gun owners as possible to flood the State House and speak with one voice against this cynical, opportunistic and anti-due-process bill whose only real purpose is to tighten the noose around the throats of gun owners.

This is the only anti-gun bill which has made it this far in this session. We absolutely need your help to end it. Please find a way to be at the State House for this hearing. It may cost you a vacation day, or even a day’s pay, but it will cost us all far more if this bill becomes law. We cannot allow that.

The text of the bill is at the link below. Read it and weep. And remember, this is only what they think they can pass *today*. You can rest assured that if this becomes law, it will be amended to be even worse at the first opportunity.

See you in Augusta.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/b … 071901.asp


Todd Tolhurst
President
Gun Owners of Maine, Inc.

Share

Harbinger of Spring

A recent report from Maine’s Eleazar Peabody:

Tom;

              Albany, Maine 3-26-18    Tracks of the rare and mostly unseen, Mud Runt, were glimpsed this morning on a walk down the driveway.  With all the melt from the recent Nor’easters, I was surprised to see the tracks so soon. I am still trying to get an updated photo of the Mud Runt, but to no such luck.  Biologists are now wondering if the Mud Runt is having an effect on the woodcock population, which is trending down over the last few years.  The woodcock usually start showing up in the last week of March, and may now be on the Runt’s diet.  I’ll post a file photo of the New England Mud Runt to help those looking for this wary creature.  EP
Share