February 25, 2018

Maine Deer/Car Crashes: Trying To Make Sense of What Was Said

Sometimes what someone says about something doesn’t make a lick of sense. Such was the case when I read a report about cars crashing into deer in Aroostook County, Maine.

Let’s see if we can make any sense at all over this.

The report begins by saying that “vehicle crashes with deer have quadrupled in Aroostook County in the last five years” because deer populations have grown. Seriously? I wonder how many hunters would agree that deer numbers in Aroostook County have grown so much that it has caused a quadrupling of accidents? (If we ever get the 2017 deer harvest data from MDIFW, I wonder if it will show an increase in deer harvest in Aroostook County?)

Then we are told that last year a “feeding operation” (no details about it) caused 100 crashes with logging trucks, but has since been moved (to where?) and “no longer poses a road hazard.”

A regional biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) says, “We’re doing everything we can to keep deer away from the roads. Deer numbers have swelled and more often spend their winters in towns where there are roads and cars.”

Huh? I want to know, other than educating people about the potential problems of feeding deer (accidents), what “everything” is that is being done to keep deer out of the roads. Is that kind of like doing everything to make sure bears and coyotes don’t destroy the deer herd? Perhaps global warming can resolve this problem(?) too.

I just don’t plain get it when the biologist says that deer are now spending time living in towns where there are roads and cars. I can only guess what this means but this statement appears to be contrary to the talking points always spoken by MDIFW officials that deer winter in their idealistic deer yards, which have all been destroyed, or they die. Is MDIFW now suggesting that deer adapt and due to reduced habitat and the overwhelming presence of large predators, they have moved into town where the odds of getting run over by a logging truck are less than being eaten alive by coyotes, bobcats, and lynx?

However, the same biologist attributes the growing deer population to (you have to get ready for this) “reduced coyote predation, supplemental feeding and relatively mild winters.” MDIFW evidently believes their coyote program in Aroostook County accounts for part of the increase in deer but state that there hasn’t been a severe winter in Aroostook County in 10 years. It must be like all good environmentalists would do, MDIFW changed the criteria as to what constitutes a severe winter. Perhaps it’s just the thought that global warming exists, therefore, there is no longer any such thing as a severe winter.

Maybe MDIFW knows from their ongoing deer study, which is a huge secret, it appears, that there are more deer in the North Country than they thought. But, we’ll never know that because they never share that information with anyone…unless it makes them look good.

But isn’t this report and all comments geared to address but one thing? – feeding deer. MDIFW does not like it when people feed deer. They never have and probably never will until they can find a way to tax it or somehow make money from it. Never finding anything good to say about people feeding deer, MDIFW goes out of their way to even make up reasons why people shouldn’t do it.

The news report found someone who obviously doesn’t approve of deer feeding and someone who coincidentally had a crash with a deer recently, to share his “expertise” about deer feeding programs. This person describes deer, because of being fed, “they were so fat they couldn’t get over the guard rails.” 

This same “expert,” who claims there are “[a]bsolutely, there are more deer this year,” is contrasted by what the Washburn Police Chief said, “It’s not clear if there are more or less deer-related crashes this year than in others.” Well, don’t ruin a good story injecting facts into it. Fat deer that can’t get out of their own way are dropping like flies.

In more efforts to demonize deer feeding, the regional wildlife biologist says, “In some places, the deer have over-browsed their natural winter foods such as hardwood trees.” He also says there’s nothing left to eat. Not to be just contradictory, but, if this is true doesn’t this mean three things? One, that if there wasn’t supplemental feeding, deer will starve to death. Two, deer must have grown so much in numbers they have exceeded carrying capacity, and three, deer are eating their “natural food” despite feeding programs. If this is the case then why hasn’t MDIFW begun issuing “Any-Deer Permits” to reduce the size of the deer herd. We are told that the population has been “swelling” for at least five years (and it must be longer because Northern Maine hasn’t had a severe winter in 10 years and we know that, when convenient, severe winters are the biggest killers of deer.) So what’s taking so long to get those Any-Deer Permits passed out? Surely it would be much better for everyone if the deer were legally harvested by hunters, and for food to hungry people, than to simply let them starve to death while MDIFW continues to promote the stoppage of supplemental feeding.

Or isn’t this just about injecting some more emotional clap-trap into the media to discourage them to stop feeding deer?

But most bizarre of all in this article involves the comment apparently intended to address disease…or something.

To be forthcoming, there is a threat to the spread of disease, when any disease is present and when there are large concentrations of deer. MDIFW has always stated deer feeding programs as being potentially problematic in the spread of some diseases.

However, I have tried to get my wee small brain wrapped around the very last statement at the end of the article.

“Eventually, those deer are going to share diseases, ticks, everything else. The gene pools are going to get shallower. They’re not going to be able to get their own food.”

I could spend hours guessing what any of this might mean. “Eventually” we have no idea what is going to take place. If you believe the lies about Climate Change, then you might also believe that there might be more deer in the north and fewer moose, Canada lynx, etc. Historically speaking, there has never been an overwhelming number of deer in the North Woods of Maine. Experts love to be like echo chambers and when it’s convenient, tell us how northern Maine is at the northern fringe of the whitetail deer’s range. They also like to tell us, when it’s convenient, that severe winters keep the population down. If it’s convenient, as appears in this case here, the population has “swelled” and it’s because people are feeding deer AND the winters are mild – convenient truths.

So what’s to believe?

I’m completely at sea about the comment about gene pools. I’ve done a fair amount of writing and research about gene pools in deer and I haven’t run across the term that a gene pool will get “shallower.”

Maybe we’re all gonna die!!

I’m not sure, but I’m guessing the “expert” knows nothing about gene pools but it makes for good copy, as I have seen many places before.

MDIFW hates it when people feed deer. I understand their position and their reasons given. I can’t say that I agree completely with their reasoning about it. I think it has become exceedingly clear the MDIFW and the State of Maine would have a difficult time trying to stop it. The upside to deer feeding is the sense of ownership that many people take concerning their local deer herds. A lot can be said about that.

Has anyone done a study to determine how much supplemental feeding is taking place and how many deer that involves? This might tell us what percentage of the overall population of deer is being affected and whether or not any of this hubbub is worth being that concerned about. Just asking.

I recall many years ago emailing with Maine’s head deer biologist about feeding programs. I don’t have the exact quote but essentially he said (at that time) the number of deer affected by feeding was so small percentage-wise, that it wasn’t worth making a fuss over. What, if anything, has changed since then?

It sounds like, from what I read in this article, that efforts are underway to move deer feeding locations away from highways or to places that don’t cause deer to have to cross busy highways to get to them. This is positive.

Maine is fortunate that is doesn’t have diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease to deal with. If and when that time comes, deer feeding stations will have to either become illegal or designed in such a way as to limit the threat of diseases spreading. However, in those states that do have CWD, efforts to ban feeding has shown little change in the presence or spread of the disease.

I guess I’ll leave the “shallower gene pools” for another discussion.

Share

Maine’s LD11 – Fabricating Problems for a Predetermined Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Canada Lynx Report: An Extremely Rare Discovery

Maybe I tricked you with my title to this article. Regardless, read and consider the rarity of this report on the Federally protect Canada lynx.

It is almost unheard of these days to find any kind of written report about any animal, wild or domestic, that isn’t fraught with Romance Biology, Voodoo Science, Scientism, Environmentalism, emotionalism, animal rightism and any other “ism” you can think of.

Nope! Sorry that this report might be disappointing to most but what a breath of fresh air. It contains only what one man observed when he went into the forest to collect some data about Canada lynx. He followed paw prints in the snow, backtracked on them and discovered the lynx had caught and killed a ruffed grouse and carried it 0.37 miles before eating it, perhaps sharing it with lynx.

No talk of global warming. No talk of we’re all gonna die. No talk of any of that nonsensical crap almost always found in such reports.

Thank you to wildlife biologist Scott McClellan, for filing such a report. Thanks to Emily MacCabe for posting this report and thanks to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for allowing this rare event to take place.

Please send more just like it.

Share

Maine Bobcat: The Only Wild Predator in the East That “Regularly” Kills Deer?

I was reading an article this morning from Mount Desert Island, Maine about how the presence of bobcats helps to control the deer population on the island. Puzzling was this comment: “This interesting member of the cat family is our only wild predator in the east that regularly kills deer.” 

Like with any words in a written document and no author to explain, we are often left with guessing what certain words were intended to mean. Such is the case here.

First, is the author intending to refer to “our only” as meaning the bobcat is Mount Desert Island’s only large wild predator? Second, we are uncertain whether the author’s reference to “in the east” means in eastern Mount Desert Island, eastern Maine or the eastern United States. Third, what is meant when the author says “regularly kills deer?”

Guessing the precise definition really doesn’t matter in the accuracy of the claim. Either way you look at this, the statement is incomplete, at best, and also misleading, whether intended to be that way or not.

I would have serious doubts that Mount Desert Island has only bobcats as a large predator. As common as coyotes are in Maine now, it is almost certain they can be found there.

There are several “wild predators” in the east of Maine or in the east, that regularly (that’s a value-weighted perspective so this is my perspective) kills deer, although many refuse to acknowledge and understand the fact.

Excluding man, black bears, coyotes/coyote-wolf hybrids, bobcats, and Canada lynx regularly kill deer in Maine. Black bears regularly kill deer in Maine. This happens most often during the springtime when doe deer are fawning. Bears learn where deer go to fawn, as do all other predators. However, we must also remember that when any predator gets hungry enough they will take up doing things they might not normally do when food is plentiful. Black bears, under the right conditions, have been known to “ambush” a deer, sometimes taking one deer out of a traveling family of deer.

Maine’s coyotes, which we now have learned are actually a cross-breed mix of assorted coyotes, wolves, and domestic dogs, kill deer sometimes at rates that leave us astonished. For ease of writing, I’ll just call them coyotes.

Coyotes and bears both can smell a fawn soon after it has been born. They often move in and take the fawn while it is basically helpless. In winter, coyotes regularly visit winter deer yards. When conditions are right, a winter deer yard can take on the appearance of a bloody battlefield.

I once spoke with a Maine Warden who told me that one particularly “harsh” winter, while conducting aerial fly-overs, several areas were shockingly awash in blood on the white snows. His comment was he had never seen anything like it before.

When coyotes move into deer wintering areas, often they hamstring the pregnant does and, while still alive, eat through the vaginal canal of the deer and extract the unborn fetus. Evidently, this is a bit of a delicacy for the wild dogs.

Video exists of coyotes taking down adult, healthy deer. Partly because of genetic exchanges, these coyotes have learned to hunt in packs and, while perhaps not the method of choice, have proven they can take down a fully grown male deer.

The same is true for bobcats. The bobcat has a different method of killing a deer, but lethal nonetheless. Once again, photos and video readily show a bobcat latching onto an adult deer and persisting until the prey is killed.

The Canada lynx has been known to kill deer as well and shouldn’t be discounted as a threat at certain times to the deer.

Maine has several large predators and those predators will kill deer…regularly. Depending upon the conditions, a large predator may or may not kill deer. Depending on the conditions, a large predator may or may not attack a man. Nothing within a wild ecosystem is all that predictable. There are so many instances that are driven by conditions at present.

One thing is for certain. The bobcat is NOT the only wild predator that kills deer regularly.

Share

Dog owner during bear attack: ‘I stuck my finger right in its eye’

Forgetting to “look big” or believing that “bears are more afraid of you than you are of them,” and yet we are also repeatedly told how rare it is that a bear would attack anything…man or beast, yet one more “rare” bear attack. Regardless, a man stopped beside the road to let his dog take a pee. The report (linked to below) states that the man took his “11-month-old lab mix” about 50 feet into the woods and that’s where his dog was attacked and where he fought the bear off his dog. The event left the dog and the man with cuts and bruises but nothing life-threatening.

One has to wonder when you read the following nonsensical quips and quotes, what is this information being passed along based upon? – “This does not happen, except in freak instances…” and “Black bears, which rarely attack other animals…,” followed by, “The den was unusually close to a busy roadway, ‘but a younger one doesn’t necessarily know to go back into the woods’…”, and this, “I don’t want people to freak out and think they can’t go into the woods and without worrying about a bear nailing them.” and lastly, “Since the 1980s, fewer than a dozen Mainers have fended off a bear, and none have died.”

Granted, discovering a bear hibernating or otherwise next to the highway, in the dead of winter in Maine, right at the spot a man stops to “water” his dog, is a rarity. But let’s look a bit closer at the idiocy of this report.

The article, like a good echo chamber, states that black bears “rarely attack other animals.” Because this is extremely subjective, what does this actually mean? Later in the article, it reads that since the 1980s, “fewer than a dozen” Mainers (what about out-of-staters?) have fought off a bear attack. What about the many others that probably go unreported? Does everyone who encounters a bear call and report it to the Bangor Daily News? All of this brings us to the important point as to just how “rare” is it that bears attack animals? If the man did not have a dog with him when he entered the woods, would the bear have attacked the man? Would that have been okay…as in the man deserved it somehow? We know what the newspapers, prompted by the environmentalist-trained biologists and game wardens would say. Are we being responsible for continuously repeating black bears don’t attack people or animals?

We know that come Spring, black bears have learned where deer and moose go to calve their young. Attacking new-born calves is a very common thing…or is it a rare thing if you somehow feel the need to protect a predator even at the cost of human life?

I would like something more substantive from the press, and I know we’ll never get it, that supports their claims of the rarity.

I have admitted that it is unusual to find a bear semi-hibernating 50-feet off the highway, but aren’t we doing some projecting and placing human traits on an animal when we say things like, “but a younger one [black bear] doesn’t necessarily know to go back into the woods?” Many, so-called, scientists have studied varying species of animal to learn about their behavior. Seriously, have we reached a point that we now know what an animal “thinks” and why?” That is what we believe now…right? Maybe a lawsuit, on behalf of this young, improperly raised, and confused bear should be filed against the bear’s mother for abandoning it before it was mature enough to make good decisions, especially those based on weather conditions predicted in The Old Farmer’s Almanac. Or perhaps the MDOT should be sued for building a road where one day an immature, neglected, young bear decided to take a nap.

But more than anything else, the people should be sued because of Climate Change. That’s it. There’s no way this bear would have sacked out in this spot if it wasn’t for global warming. When will we ever learn?

The Maine Warden says he doesn’t want people to freak out and think they can’t go into the woods out of fear of “a bear nailing them.” I realize that we are all trained to believe that all people are incapable of making any kind of a decision without the direction of the State – and this is probably quite true – but which is being more responsible – telling people repeatedly bears won’t harm them or properly educating them on what might happen, even in one’s determination to never demonize a predator? If we should choose the education route to go, let’s find something better than telling a scared shitless, soon-to-be bear food victim to “look big.”

Perhaps the answer lies in the next to last paragraph of the article which states: “Since the 1980s, fewer than a dozen Mainers have fended off a bear, and none have died.” (emboldening added)

It is, therefore, to protect the bear, the tens of thousands of them, because attacks on animals (and people) are rare. The insane and perverse perspectives toward large predators are reinforced when we read that someone failing to get killed by a black bear justifies our ignorant and irresponsible actions.

Game Warden Shannon Fish confirmed that there were traces of a bear living in a small den where the attack occurred.

“This does not happen, except in freak instances, and Monday was a freak instance,” Fish said.<<<Read More>>>

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

History Archive of MDIFW Available Online

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, in collaboration with the Maine State Library, have undertaken a project to digitize and make available online historical documents. This should be a valuable resource for many people. To access this information, go to Digital Maine Repository.

Share

Northwoods Sporting Journal Free Online

A great announcement came to me this morning. Maine’s leading outdoor magazine, the Northwoods Sporting Journal is now available, for free, Online. Just go to sportingjournalonline.com and in the box that appears to “Enter Here,” use the password nwoods.

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Maine’s “Chickadee Check-off” Has the Wrong Name

The State of Maine has an Income Tax check-off where those choosing to make a contribution to efforts to save endangered and threatened wildlife. One of the problems with the Federal version of species protection is their fascist ways of dictating to states certain species that are endangered and threatened and then extorting money from the taxpayers in order to carry out their fascist mandates. This Federal action causes states like Maine to have to resort to bake sales to get money so that the fascists will “match” that money.

However, when Maine people see “Chickadee Checkoff” what are they thinking? Why not change the name to something that actually tells people what it is? Maybe something like, “Endangered Wildlife Protection Fund.”

According to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) website, the checkoff is for “…funding for non-game and endangered and threatened species…”

Oh, it’s not to save the chickadee!!

Share