February 19, 2019

Can We Make Schools Safer By Using the Same Totalitarian Demands for More Government Control?

*Editor’s Note* – This is not an attempt at discrediting David Trahan. He does great and useful work with the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. He is to be commended and applauded for the effort he puts in to right wrongs and carry out the wishes of the members of SAM. In my work, I work tirelessly attempting to cause people to see the wrongs, the insanity of how we have been programmed to operate. As a result, I may come across as harsh and/or unfair to some. It is not my attempt to attack the person but to reveal and address truth and to cause people to think for themselves by giving alternative or additional thoughts to a problem.

In a second effort at addressing gun control and public safety, David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), pens another article to address school safety. You can read Trahan’s first editorial about “Red Flag Laws” and my comments here.

Trahan writes: “…policy makers and Americans have not focused on coming together to institute universal security changes at all schools capable of stopping or minimizing the success of future attacks.” Huh? What does that mean, if anything?

What are “universal security changes?” Are they anything like “universal background checks?” Why are they called universal? In this context is the word used as an adjective or a noun? Are these actions “universal” because any oppressive laws were devised by a group of like minded people? Or do these same laws have an effect on everybody? Perhaps both. If so, maybe it is more correct to state that we have failed to come together to “institute universal, universal security changes.”

Regardless, the statement sounds more like a politician who refuses to give an honest answer with any meaning.

In this same article, Trahan explains his previous attempts at addressing school safety by formulating groups to conduct “studies” as well as creating a task force that will listen to complaints and examine recommendations from these “study” groups.

Useless!

None of that worked and so it appears the solution is to try it again and change the name a little bit.

Isn’t it insanity to think that you can fix a rigged system by working with the rigged system to fix the rigging? A system is rigged because it doesn’t want outside interference. In order that any government entity can continue to operate within their rigging they must learn how to continue to fool the people into thinking something is being done. An example of that might be just what you are seeing here – a call for “universal” security changes. Even Trahan tells readers, “…because most of the report was made confidential in an effort to protect vulnerable schools, we have no way of knowing whether our schools are safer…” How convenient, but that’s how rigged systems continue to operate.

He also writes: “They should be directed by the Government Oversight Committee to examine statewide whether we have adequate school security.”

Ah yes. That “Government Oversight Committee.” Ah yes. The insanity of it all. Government anything is a corrupt useless existence of nonsense. Let’s completely remove government interference and then maybe something constructive could happen. The insanity shows itself when people lament the curses of government and then in the next breath cry out to the same government demanding an answer. Isn’t this the product of the Hegelian Dialectic – create a problem, embellish it, and rush in with an answer? Ah, brainwashing! Isn’t it also a full display of cognitive dissonance – the inability to understand and relate rational thought in making decisions? Ah, programming!

I’ve written often about how so-called Second Amendment supporters make hypocrites of themselves when they actively seek “reasonable” restrictions to a granted right that has no restrictions. In their arguments to support the right to keep and bear arms, they always fall back on the theory that gun laws only limit the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to stop violent crime. And yet, they disregard that same philosophy when it comes to things like school safety. Are we to believe that in this instance laws designed to make schools safer, that is for the law-abiding, will only affect the violent criminals that might enter a school and do harm?

Perhaps if we exerted as much energy into addressing the real problem in this perverted, violent, immoral society to end the needless violence, violence that is grown and perpetuated in this out-of-control society of progressives who seek more decadence and immorality, then much of what totalitarians, disabled by cognitive dissonance, are now attempting to do would become unnecessary. But that’s never been the American way. The American way is to somehow try to find a cure for the symptoms so that they can continue, uninterrupted, carrying out their indecent and obscene lifestyles.

But, it will never happen that way. So, all you people who know not what you do, you keep working hard at getting those “UNIVERSAL” changes that are going to make everything better.

I think creating concentration camps was a “universal” change.

Share

Brainwashing the Cause of Loss of Youth Hunters

This morning I was reading an article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald about the woes of the loss of youth to the activity of hunting, specifically the reduction of license sales.

Bills are being proposed to mitigate some of that loss including increasing the Youth Hunting Day from one to three days and one bill proposed to create a turkey hunting season for youth around Thanksgiving. Maybe more effort should be given to coordinate hunting seasons for youth that line up with school vacations and/teacher workshop days.

It seems that these proposed bills are coming from young people who already enjoy hunting and are looking for more opportunities designed exclusively for youth hunters under the age of 16. Not that these proposals and ideas are bad, but are such acts targeting the non hunters? I don’t think so.

To interest a new, let’s say Middle School-aged person, to hunt, shouldn’t we at least be attempting to devise ways of generating interest where there is none?

If you might agree that there is no interest and nothing being done to change that dilemma, then the question might become why can’t this be done?

I think the explanation is quite simple. It’s because our schools, media, etc. have successfully brainwashed the masses to view animals as creatures of intelligence, feelings, love, and should be bestowed the same rights, or more, as humans. When you combine this with a fish and wildlife department trained in the same indoctrination factories, what hope is there?

Yes, there is no doubting that the youth of today sometimes more resemble zombies with their noses pressed firmly to anything electronic. This is by design. What better way to control the future of our world than to completely manipulate the minds of the youth through music, cellphones, and all electronic gadgets that have been designed to target and control?

Efforts underway to recruit more youth hunters might collect a stray here and there but until such time as we put a stop to the ongoing indoctrination and brainwashing of our children, nothing will get better and much will get worse.

Share

Isn’t Man a “Natural” Predator?

I was reading a very interesting article yesterday about how authorities undertook a deer cull on Mount Desert Island (Acadia National Park, Maine) back in the 1960s. It seems that once hunting was halted in the 1930s, deer grew unchecked and became a real nuisance to where something had to be done.

A couple of things caught my eye while reading that somebody needs to point out because it contributes to the problems associated with wildlife management that has become more of an act of Scientism as well as Romance Biology.

In the very first paragraph, we find: “Lately the most frequent “predators” of deer on Mount Desert Island have been motorized vehicles. But for several years in the 1960s, before coyotes migrated to the island, Acadia National Park rangers used rifles and live traps to fill the role of natural predators and cull the herd.” (emboldening added)

Lost in this quest to “save the planet” of which environmentalism is centered around, is the fact that man is a predator and a natural one. The CREATOR did not put plants and animals on this planet for the sole pleasure of environmentalists. As a matter of fact, it was the CREATOR’S intention that Man should have “dominion” over the plants and animals and to use them as a resource including sustenance.

This active Romance Biology believes that man should be removed from any equation about balance within an ecosystem and that the task can be accomplished with just letting things run their course…excluding man. Just how do you do that?

The NATURAL PREDATOR, Man, assumed their role as an “apex” predator and did what was perceived by Man, that natural predator, as a necessity; even though how the culling was done was not the intended way and best use of a natural resource.

It was around 1957 when a park “naturalist” estimated the deer population on Mount Desert Island (MDI) was between 1,000 and 1,500 animals. (The author of the piece chose to incorrectly call the deer “individuals.”)

It was thought that something had to be done to reduce that overgrown population of deer. It was decided to “live trap” and “shoot” the deer (no hunting) in order “to bring the starving herd into proper balance with nature.”

Even when misguided groups and individuals choose to assume the belief that Man is not a part of anything to do with Nature, it is impossible to get away from the very foundation of the need to manage and control certain aspects of our ecosystem in order to bring things into a socially determined “proper balance.”

Because there is no such thing as a “balance of nature” as is presented in propaganda and scientismic Romance Biology, man, who according to the environmentalists cannot be a part of the equation, always steps up to manipulate the existence to bring it in line with perspective ideals of whoever is in charge at the moment. And therefore we have the current definition of “proper balance.”

The hypocrisy here is that even those espousing to a “natural balance” cannot really believe it possible because they are always at work to bring that balance in line with their ideals. It makes little sense.

It is also inexplicable how, to some, it is acceptable to torture an animal, to capture it, or pay men to slaughter them, and yet see hunting, fishing, and trapping as inhumane, unfair, cruel, and something that needs to be stopped.

I think when push comes to shove it really isn’t about whether there is a natural balance, or whether man should be a part of the nature of things, but that a perverted sense that animals should share in the same existence as man, and thus hunting them for sport, food, or trophies, is wrong; but slaughtering them to fulfill ideals is acceptable.

Strange.

Share

It’s Not Just a Hunter Who Harasses Wildlife

I was reading an article this morning online from the website CentralMaine.com about how social media has contributed to providing realtime locations of rare wildlife species, followed by an influx of eager watchers, photographers, and perhaps even the occasional hunter.

It reminded me of a true story about two hunters/fishermen who spotted a rare bird and the very responsible thing that was done.

Several years ago, these two hunters who were on a fishing trip in the north-central region of Maine, opted not to go out in their canoe one fine morning to fly-fish for brook trout due to rather windy conditions. Instead, one of the two suggested they take a ride to where he had taken a view of some ledges in the far distance during the trip in. What he had in mind was a chance to try out his new spotting scope.

The two guys made the relatively short drive from the campground down the dusty dirt road and located an excellent spot in which one could easily see the cliffs, but only very sharp eyes and/or binoculars/spotting scope might see any birds utilizing the cliffs for prey or nesting.

The man who had the spotting scope mentioned that he was hoping maybe the cliffs were home to some peregrine falcons.

The other guy had neither scope nor binoculars but had excellent eyesight.

After a few minutes, the man without enhanced viewing mechanisms, said, “Hey, I think I can occasionally see some birds flying about in front of those ledges! They must be pretty big birds if I can see them with my bare eyes.”

The other man had been looking in his scope. What his companion didn’t know is that he had already spotted the birds and was watching them trying to figure out just what kind of birds they were.

After perhaps an hour of viewing, each taking turns looking through the scope, it was decided that what was seen certainly appeared to be a pair of golden eagles, even though, to their knowledge, there were no “known” golden eagles in the state of Maine.

Excited about the prospects of what had been seen, they agreed that they should keep their mouths shut until they could get more information. Perhaps, they thought, they were the only ones to have spotted this nesting pair.

They finished the fishing trip and headed home at the end of the weekend. On Monday morning, the man who owned the scope, called the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and reported what he had seen.

After a bit of conversation, the person at MDIFW told the informant that the department was aware of the nesting pair and that they were working with the landowner in hopes of offering as much protection as possible in order to help facilitate a successful breeding and fledging. He was asked to please not share this information until the event had run its course.

And that is exactly what the two men did, even though they wanted so much to tell as many people as they could.

I know this story to be true because I was one of the two men. If others should be more the same way perhaps things would be a bit different and there would be less harassment of wildlife.

I’m not holding my breath.

Share

Maine Moose Permit Lottery Open For Business

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

Dreaming of the hunt of a lifetime? We are pleased to announce that the 2019 Maine moose permit lottery application process is now open.

Applications for the moose permit lottery will be accepted online only.

The online application process is fast and simple and you receive instant confirmation that you have successfully entered the lottery. 

To apply online, go to mefishwildlife.com and fill out the online moose permit application. There, you will be able to indicate several preferences, including which wildlife management districts (WMD) you are willing to accept a permit in, and if you would accept a permit in another WMD if your name is drawn and all of your top choices are filled. You will also be able to select your preferred hunting season, whether or not you would accept an antlerless permit, and your choice of a sub-permittee. 

The deadline to apply for the lottery is 11:59 p.m. on May 15, 2019.

Applicants are awarded bonus points for each consecutive year that they have applied for the lottery since 1998 without being selected and each bonus point gives the applicant an additional chance in the drawing. Bonus points are earned at the rate of one per year for years one to five, two per year for years six to 10, three per year for years 11 to 15 and 10 per year for years 16 and beyond. Since 2011, applicants can skip a year and not lose their bonus points. So if you applied in 2017 but not in 2018, you will still have your points available if you apply in 2019.

Want to be there for the drawing? The 2019 moose lottery permit drawing will take place at Cabela’s in Scarborough, Maine on June 8, 2019.

For more information about moose hunting in Maine and the moose permit lottery, please visit: mefishwildlife.com

Share

Proposed Deer Hunting Bills for Maine

Deer hunting bill proposals are making there way before the Legislative Joint Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Here’s a look at some, with links for you to view the text of the bills, and some comments that I may have.

LD175 – An Act to Extend the Deer Hunting Season by 2 Saturdays.

In my opinion this is not a good idea. Let me explain my position.

As I understand the bill, the intent here is to give rifle deer hunters 2 extra Saturdays to hunt. These two Saturdays would run the following two Saturdays after the last Saturday of hunting in November. This usually occurs right after Thanksgiving.

It should be noted that the two weeks following the regular firearms season is muzzleloader season. These 2 extra Saturdays being sought coincide with the muzzleloader season.

I am not a very big proponent of the muzzleloader season falling when it does. It is my opinion that running any deer hunting season that late into the season puts an added stress on the deer which are either on their way to winter yard up or are already there.

Adult male deer have undergone a great physical strain through their rutting season. They have eaten little, have lost a lot of weight and stored fat. Further stressing the animal puts it at greater risk of survival during the winter months.

Adding 2 Saturdays of rifle hunters in the woods stressing further the deer population could cause serious damage to the deer herd, of course, depending on what Wildlife Management District (WMD) we are talking about. Certain WMDs would be not under the strains of winter during that time while others, like this past season, deer would already be yarded up. Perhaps changes to this bill might specify WMDs that would not be greatly affected.

It is not that I am opposed to offering hunters extra opportunities. My concern is for the deer herd. When examining hunter opportunities, it must be considered whether the deer herd can withstand the extra strain and the resulting reduction in the herd.

LD188 – An Act To Provide for an Expanded Muzzle-loading-only Deer
Hunting Season

This proposed bill will make it mandatory that the Muzzleloader Season on deer be extended for “12 hunting days” following the close of regular firearms season.

There’s a couple of things that need to be explained here. First, the current laws regulating the muzzleloader season give the commissioner authority to close a season if conditions warrant the need.

Second, the commissioner also has authority to set the season dates. The new proposal would mandate 12 hunting days (two calendar weeks) and remove authority from the commissioner to set the dates. It would not take away the authority of the commissioner to close the season if conditions warrant.

There is little that changes here from the current conditions except taking the authority away from the commissioner to set the muzzleloader season dates and makes the season mandatory. As long as the commissioner can still close the season due to detrimental conditions, I see little difference.

Neither for nor against this bill until such time as more evidence is presented.

LD190 – An Act To Provide Antlerless Deer Permits to Senior Resident
Lifetime Hunting License Holders

The intent of this bill is within its title. It is my understanding that there are currently some 36,000 senior hunters. Many are not aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of “Any-Deer Permits” (ADP) are already predestined to special interest groups. Adding another 36,000 ADPs to the list will effectively use up all the permits. The ADP system is a tool that is used to manipulate the deer populations per WMD. If the total number of ADPs required to be issued exceeds the biological need, then what? In addition, this bill allows for the holder of a senior ADP to use his/her tag anywhere in the state. This runs contrary to the theory behind utilizing ADPs.

Not only would I oppose this bill but I might suggest another bill that would effectively repeal the issuance of most all other special interest groups’ awards of ADPs.

LD265 – An Act To Increase Opportunities for Hunters, Anglers and
Sporting Camps by Extending the Seasons on Upland Game

The intent of this bill is to open the season on Upland Game on the last Saturday of September in order to better utilize a Saturday to coincide with fishing season. It is stated that this bill would be perhaps an economic advantage for sporting camps.

I think this bill makes sense and not only assist sporting camps but might provide better opportunities to hunt snowshoe hare, gray squirrels, ring-necked pheasants, ruffed grouse, and bobwhite quail. Provided that such a move doesn’t jeopardize the management goals of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, this bill appears reasonable.

Share

Advice and Suggestions to the Maine Department of Fish and Wildlife

A reader sent me a copy of the Maine Sportsman, specifically George Smith’s article about his “advise” to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). After reading it, I thought perhaps I would offer something similar. Sometimes I am accused of being only critical of the MDIFW seldom offering constructive criticism or even suggestions on better or different ways in which to do things.

Smith writes of the need to “unlock that door” that prohibits visitors access to the commissioner of the MDFIW. I understand the concept and how convenient it would be to just “drop in” someday and chat with the commissioner. I would like to think that the real situation playing at the offices of the MDIFW has more to do with security than a want to lock themselves up and separate them from the public. I might be wrong. We do live in a strange time in which most people are always aware and subjected to enhanced security measures.

TURKEYS

George writes about what he would do about turkey management and the role that hunting plays in that management. For the most part I think he brings up some good points, i.e. too many turkeys, too few hunters, and the barrier of license fees that prohibit more people from trying or getting involved in turkey hunting and harvesting a turkey that would aide the MDIFW with their management goals.

Originally, I had thought that Smith’s idea of including turkey hunting as part of a Big Game Hunting License wouldn’t fly because the MDIFW would not be willing to give up that revenue from turkey license fees. Is there a trade-off here? Will somehow opening up the turkey season to reduced cost (and loss of fees to MDIFW) be made up in other ways? Perhaps.

I think that consensus must be reached as to whether there are too many turkeys and how critical it is that turkey populations be reduced. If, more people gained interest in turkey hunting, perhaps down the road, as populations came more in line with management goals, turkey license fees could be levied again. If a reduction in the number of turkeys is urgently needed, and I think if we haven’t gotten there yet we soon will, then the MDIFW must do what is expedient to make the reductions in numbers necessary to be responsible for the healthy management of these game birds.

FISHERIES

Fisheries is far from my strong point and knowledge base. I am not at all that qualified to offer the MDIFW advice on how to specifically manage the fisheries in the State of Maine. How fortunate for some.

MOOSE

Odd isn’t it, in many ways, that some are opposed to the reduction of moose populations to mitigate the winter ticks’ destruction of the moose herd but think nothing about advocating the complete destruction of a herd of deer to get rid of Lyme disease. Perhaps if more evidence pointed a finger at the health risk to humans from the winter tick, mindsets might change.

I have written extensively on Maine’s moose and what I believe to be the need to bring the moose population in Maine to levels that seriously reduce the presence and perpetuation of winter ticks that are inhumanely and unnecessarily causing moose to suffer and die during long and cold winters.

Smith laments about the loss of businesses associated with moose watching now that Mother Nature took over where wildlife management failed. During the heyday of the overgrown moose populations, some scrambled and took advantage, as any good entrepreneur might do, looking for ways to exploit the abundant moose for profit. It might have been fun while it lasted but the lesson that should be learned here might be at what price do we exploit any wildlife animal for lucre? As grown adults we should see that having enough moose around that many got into the business of moose watching tours was but a flash in that pan. Time to move on. We have learned that attempting to grow moose in numbers for capitalistic enterprises is a terrible thing to do to the animal – part of the downside of attempting to manage any species while being driven by social demands.

More recent studies are suggesting what some of us knew a long time ago – that too many moose was the cause of the aggressive expanse of winter ticks resulting in high mortality rates on the large beast.

The MDIFW should move quickly to determine at what population Maine’s moose will be most healthy while still providing opportunities for Maine residents to harvest a moose and fill their freezers.

I suggest that the MDIFW, once establishing moose populations, based on sound science and not social demands, issue enough permits or a long enough season to bring the population under a control that reduces the tick infestation. Once that is accomplished, permit for the future can be issued accordingly. Letting Mother Nature do the job is not only irresponsible but is a waste of a terrific natural resource.

DEER

Smith tells readers that the MDIFW stopped managing deer in northern Maine and only “manages” moose. I don’t know if this is actually an official position taken by the MDIFW, but it appears there is at least quite a bit of evidence to support that statement.

Smith claims that because Maine failed to protect winter habitat in Northern and Western Maine, the deer herd “was lost.” I concur the deer herd was lost but I think it had other influences than just a loss of habitat. A lot of things have changed over the years, one thing being the behavior of the deer. While deer are learning how to adapt to that loss of winter habitat, we humans remain locked in our unadaptable behavior of insisting on things being the way they were when our fathers hunted the whitetails.

Each time I have listened to the worn out excuse that deer have disappeared because of loss of winter habitat, I have always asked why, if that is true, thousands of acres of old winter habitat, still in winter habitat condition, is void of deer? Never an answer.

Loss of winter habitat in the classical sense, can and does have an effect on the deer population. Attempting to somehow “manage” deer to return to unwanted winter habitat, is an example of managers failing to learn and adjust to changes of the deer population and their habits. When we see this failure, one can’t help but wonder how much we can rely on the deer managers “estimate” of deer populations and other management shortcomings.

We failed to learn quickly enough that attempting to manage moose populations at high enough levels that tourism benefitted, the moose herd suffered terribly due to exposure and anemia from blood sucking winter ticks. Deer populations are suffering but perhaps in different ways because the ecosystem in which they have traditionally comfortably inhabited have and are changing. The deer are adapting as best they can but our management tactics are not. Evidently the preference is to give up.

Too many moose compete with deer. Too many large predators kill deer and fawns and this is challenging the stability of the deer population and in some places we are witnessing the unsustainability of a deer herd. Are we to just blame it on loss of winter habitat and Climate Change or should we be responsible stewards of our wild game animals?

If we are to mitigate the cause for the lack of deer in portions of Northern and Western Maine, isn’t the responsible thing to do is to reduce the bear and coyote populations to give the deer a chance? If we simply stop deer management because loss of habitat and Climate Change is the excuse, what then can we expect of all of our game and wildlife species going forward?

Managers have a responsibility to care for all of these game species. Giving up on one species in certain areas, tells me that there is lack of knowledge and poor management skills involved. The epitome of wildlife management failures is giving in to some man’s fictitious notion that the globe is warming and the northern border of the whitetail deer’s habitat is moving south, while our neighbors to the north continue to work at managing their deer. If Climate Change is causing such chaos that is forcing the destruction of habitat for deer, then it makes sense that other more northern species are migrating south according to the changes. Is this happening? No. A warming climate, as claimed, should be reducing the affects of severe winters. Is that happening? No.

There’s little more that managers can do to stop the perceived reduction of winter habit and deer habitat in general short of demanding more totalitarian tactics to take property and property rights away from people and corporations. It’s easy, from afar, to stand in judgement over landowners, demanding they relinquish their rights as property owners in order to enhance the habitat of any wild animal. The tough part to deer management is maximizing what is left and working in earnest to make the best of what we have. Even if deer densities in Northern and Western Maine aren’t at ideal levels, is that reason enough to simply walk away and say, we tried?

There is no need to kill off all the coyotes/wolves in Maine or reduce bear populations to levels that give us more deer than are needed to balance a very valuable resource. All that is stopping this effort is the MDIFW’s insistence on caving to social demands. I suppose to them in the short term it is easier to cave in than to stand up to those demands supported by strong scientific evidence. And that may be the actual problem. Does the MDIFW have or want the strong scientific evidence?

BEAR

The MDIFW has a very good bear study program. Some claim that program is the envy of all other fish and wildlife departments. Only radical animal rights groups or individuals would argue that there are too many bear. The MDIFW publicly admits they need to reduce the bear population, but so far, have done little to solve that problem. Perhaps they are moving at a speed that only politics and social demands allow them. Time for change.

Having too many bears presents several problems – public safety and a disruption of population goals of other species such as deer and moose. Fortunately, bear hibernate, otherwise God only knows what kind of destruction they would wreak on weakened deer in deer wintering areas.

Some studies suggest that the presence of bear has more negative impact on deer than do coyotes/wolves. Maybe the current studies that the MDIFW are conducting on moose and deer will help us gain better understanding on this concept.

Regardless, it appears Maine must reduce bear populations. But how? One problem that jumps out immediately is the power of the guides and outfitters placing demands on the MDIFW to manage bears according to their wishes that would best maximize their business profits. While it is understandable that this is important to the private enterprises, should the MDIFW continue to allow increased public safety concerns and actual reductions in deer populations, and perhaps even moose, simply to appease these groups? Of course not, but when will the MDIFW move to do anything about it? Perhaps the time is now.

Like with turkey hunting, Maine needs to find easier and less expensive ways to encourage more hunters to take up the challenge. Hunters that have little interest in bear hunting might change their mind if hunting bear were part of a Big Game License all the time during open season on bear.

Bag limits should be raised. The late summer bear hunt should have a minimum of a two-bear limit – perhaps three in some areas. If that doesn’t do the trick, then a Spring bear hunt may be necessary. Regulations can be employed to mitigate the killing of cubs as has been proven in other places that have Spring bear hunts.

The MIDFW has done a respectable job of working to ward off the radical animal rights groups bent on closing down bear hunting. They should increase and improve this effort to include everything they do with wildlife management. Two bear referendums have proven that maintaining a passive posture and making management decisions based on social demands is not only irresponsible, but ridiculous, almost childish. If wildlife managers and their administration don’t have or believe the science necessary to responsibly managed their wildlife, they should be out of a job. There should be little room given to social demands when it comes to scientifically managing game.

OPERATIONS

There are certain aspects of running a fish and game department that should be within the control of the commissioner, who, of course, answers to the governor. Open and closed seasons should be within the control of the commissioner. That person, along with the managers and biologists in the department, are the ones who should know what is going on and what is needed, not the Humane Society of the United States, other animal rights groups, or even the Legislature. Such social and political powers spoil any scientific approach at wildlife management. It may take an act of the Legislature to effect such changes.

We live in a time where these powerful animal rights and environmentalists have gained control over our factories of higher indoctrination. The result of this is now showing up in our fish and game departments where the concerns are more about the “rights” of animals and away from a consumptive, use of a natural resources approach to wildlife management.

Scientifically, it has been proven that the North American Model of Wildlife Management works. Those opposed to this form of wildlife management know this and have been working tireless to “change the way wildlife management is discussed.” Along with this has come the social demands to place equal rights and protections on animals as are given to humans.

Outdoor advocates, hunters, trappers, fishermen, as well as all those who understand and believe in the necessity of consumptive use to best manage and control wildlife, should demand that the commissioner be more selective and demanding of those that are hired as biologists and wildlife managers. Candidates should be screened as to their idealism and positions on animal rights and hunting, fishing, and trapping. To responsibly utilize hunting and fishing as part of the overall plans for wildlife management, cannot have room for animal rights advocates or those opposed to this system.

Some have called for money from general taxation to support the MDIFW. It is my opinion this would be a very big mistake. First of all, before any MORE money is dumped in the lap of this department, a complete audit should be undertaken so that all will know exactly what every penny is spent on and where every penny comes from to run the department. If more money is needed, then that has to come from fee increases and not from general taxation. Here’s why.

With money sent to the MDIFW from general taxation, along with it will be demands from the general taxpayer for bigger representation. This opens the door even further for more infiltration by environmentalists who want to “change the way we discuss wildlife management.”

We have seen this already. Where once the MDIFW used to be the department of fish and game, other states have gotten rid of their fish and game names completely, replaced with departments of natural resources.

With a weakening of the managerial understanding and knowledge of how wildlife management should run, further expedites the dreaded end to responsible wildlife management, replaced by VooDoo Science and Romance Biology.

The only way the MDIFW can survive as a bonafide fish and game department is if it remains out of the control of Environmentalism.

The MDIFW does many things well. Some things they have little control over. Certainly there is room for improvement and if others, like me, realize that if we don’t do something to change those things that are sending us in the wrong direction and away from the North American Model of Wildlife Management, the good that we enjoy now will soon be lost. Let’s not let that happen.

Share

“Red Flag” Laws Are More Than Asking a Judge to be Clairvoyant

David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), writes in his latest column that “Red Flag Laws” ask our judges to be clairvoyant, to predict what someone might do if they had a gun in their possession.

The issue here is that when someone deems, from their own perspective, that a person might be a danger to themselves or to other people, should have their constitutional rights – in this case the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – taken away from them forever or until such time as a judge or others think that right should be restored.

What can possibly go wrong?

The mindset in this post normal society of immorality and social decadence, is that a person is incapable of being responsible for their actions. While this may be partly true when comparing times of the past with those of the future, such irrational thinking is based upon fear and ignorance.

Where once people minded their own damned business, today the trend is to get into the face and affairs of others, especially when another person is operating from a position of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that disagrees with the accuser, i.e. that person willing to file a petition to have another person’s rights stolen from them.

Isn’t the biggest of all questions in this regard, who is going to become ruler of the chicken house? I’ve been around the block a time or two and there exists virtually nobody involved in politics/law enforcement (they go hand in hand), or even health and mental health professionals, who should be trusted to make any kind of judgement as to whether a person is deemed dangerous to themselves or to others, short of the obvious lunatic.

Trahan points out (in a different articles) that laws designed to steal a person’s Second Amendment rights are unique only to the Second Amendment where it is being required to take some kind of “competency” test before you can exercise a right. The argument is often that, in this case, a Second Amendment right can cause the death of a person. So what! Any honest person can tell you that all rights can, directly and indirectly result in bodily injury, mental injury, and sometimes death.

Guns are singled out and always have been. They are singled out because of the mind control and manipulation of all things in this totalitarian/fascist country to keep the masses scared to death, forcing them to call upon more government to keep them safe. The remarkable insanity of this approach is that people call upon the most corrupt and hypocritical organization that exists in the world today, to keep them safe and to protect them. It shows what a fantastic job these fascist bastards have done, when once we were taught that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure the tyrannical pond scum of governments would not take from us our rights.

Strong delusion prohibits people from seeing such a basic concept!

At the end of Trahan’s piece he writes: “One of the important lessons I have learned is that the underlying causes of domestic violence, mental health problems and suicide are far more complicated than just taking away a gun.

Furthermore, advocates know best how to address these issues. Instead of trying to find more sophisticated ways to justify a new law that runs counter to our fundamental constitutional rights, I suggest bringing these groups together, with lawmakers and state leaders, to examine these issues in a much more comprehensive and cooperative manner.

It seems like a better approach than relying on laws that ask judges and law enforcement to predict the future.

It is of political necessity for public servants to make statements about “bringing groups together,” but in reality, this post normal existence has moved far beyond any pragmatic approach to solve societal problems. Such approach always results in diminished rights.

So where does that leave us? Simple. Trahan already points out the existing laws that deal with those who choose to use violence. These so-called “Red Flag Laws” are a most dangerous act that places god-like responsibilities into the hands of some in whom I wouldn’t entrust the care of my chickens. Seriously! Do you want some scum-ball politician or incompetent, agenda-driven, crooked judge deciding what’s best for you?

Fear and ignorance of guns leaves a person with irrational hallucinations. And yet I recall the aftermath of the Boston Marathon when people lined the streets watching and applauding as law enforcement, without proper due process of the law, went door to door, sometime busting down doors, pointing weapons of mass destruction at innocent people, under the guise of looking for “terrorists.” This is what fear can do for you. That fear is so well engrained into the minds of the feckless masses, they fail to see the truth and importance of the protection of our existence through the total protection of our rights.

No person should be allowed, say nothing of granted, the authority to stand in judgement as to whether any person is a danger to themselves or others, let alone pretending they can predict the future.

The issue here is not the gun and never has been. To declare the gun the problem is as intelligent as saying lips are responsible for what a person says.

Until such time as this society is willing to address the real problems they have created through their decadence, perversion, and adiamorphicism, frantically and irrationally trying to find just one more LAW that will stop a gun from killing someone, it remains the epitome of craziness.

Share

Ban Maine’s Nomination to Head Public Safety?

Should we choose to support the new Maine governor, Janet Mill’s, pick to head up the Department of Public Safety, then it would be hypocritical to veer from Mike Sauschuck’s reasoning, or lack there of, and we should ban all things that we perceive as scary. Oh, wait a minute. That is already underway in this misguided, brainwashed, sissified, perverted society we have created.

In a report found online, Sauschuck was quoted as saying that when a person was seen openly carrying a rifle, “What he did was scare the hell out of a lot of people.” If that’s his and his followers’ beliefs, then by all means let’s ban Michael Sauschuck, those who support him, and many of his followers because, putting it bluntly, he and his ilk “scare the hell” out of me.

And part of what scares the hell out of me (seriously though, nothing scares the hell out of me) is his other statement made where the report filed this: “he said he stands by his personal views and believes no constitutional right is unlimited.”

This is the totalitarian effort on display all across America. If no constitutional right is unlimited, then why bother to have any. Let’s simply erase anything in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (along with “settled” laws like Roe v. Wade) that might even suggest some sort of liberty or freedom that was once exercised freely in this out of control society. After all, if no right is unlimited then the end result always becomes a complete erasure of any and all rights.

The basic foundation of a “conservative” approach to the governing of a people is limited government and the protection of all rights, whether those rights are considered unalienable (never questioned and/or from GOD ALMIGHTY) or are issued as privileges by the fascistic government.

Without the rule of law whose strength lies in the protection of individual rights, chaos ensues. It always has and always will.

When any person in a position of authority over others operate from a position that no laws are sacred and meant to be broken or changed in a progressive fashion that spirals deeper into immoral existence, oppression follows. Anyone would know this who studies true history.

It’s scary if you can see it. But few can or will, even when it is too late…like it already is.

Share

Maine: Crossbow Hunting – To Be Or Not To Be

Maine, once again, is being presented with a bill that would allow the use of crossbows during the regular archery season for deer. Those opposed see this as a means to kill more deer that would in turn take away hunting opportunities for hunting. Those in favor see it as the opposite.

We should toss out mostly what the Maine Guides have to say because their only position on any issue concerning hunting is all about themselves. Such is understandable…to a point, but come on…

Nobody has presented a reason why prohibiting a crossbow during archery season on deer other than for selfish reasons. I ask, is that legitimate?

If we were to take on that attitude, where would we stop. I remember when someone suggested a “primitive” muzzleloader season. That soon became not so primitive a sport so that today a “muzzleloader” is not much different than a single-shot regular firearm. Where’s the beef? Didn’t this elevation of muzzleloader take away somebody else’s hunting opportunity?

One group says that allowing crossbows will result in killing off all the deer before the rifle hunters have a chance. Are there that many crossbow hunters that they would actually force a close of the season early because the deer are all gone? We may be looking at a shorter deer hunting season but not because of crossbows. Where’s the beef?

Maybe we should ban ice fishing because ice fishermen are taking all the fish so fly rodders are left with no fish to catch?

So, do rifle hunters hold the privilege to lay out the who, what, and with what you can hunt because there are more of them?

I need something more to go on other than one group is trying to protect their own selfish interests. If I discover that there are no deer left (I think in many places that’s the case anyway) and the only chance I have to get a deer is to take up crossbow hunting, or archery, then sign me up.

How about an open season deer in July hunting with an atlatl?

I just am not the kind of person that feels justified in dictating to all others how and by what means they can hunt. Give me a good and sound biological reason, or public safety concern and I’m on board. Whine about your own shortcomings of selfishness and you get no support from me.

Sorry!

Share