April 19, 2019

Maine Legislative Committee Opposes Extra Youth Hunting Day

Recently, Maine hunters and outdoor sportsmen and women heard how the new commissioner for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), Judy Camuso, intends to recruit more people to hunt and fish.

Clearly she has little support from the legislative Joint Standing Committee of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, as that committee unanimously opposed adding one more day to the youth deer hunting.

Proven to be one of the better methods of recruiting and retaining new hunters to the fold, disallowing one more tiny day of deer hunting evidently isn’t worth the effort to do that.

Perhaps the legislative committee is somehow feeling guilty that the MDIFW instigated an unnecessary killing of more deer than most people wanted (so much for managing per social demands) by issuing a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” that happened to coincide with a very snowy winter that reports now are indicating is resulting in massive deer kills in winter yards – mostly by coyotes/coywolves.

But then, making little sense (politics NEVER do) the same committee voted to allow the elites, who can afford to buy their deer harvest, that purchase a “Superpack” license and buy an “Any-Deer Permit,” can now also participate in the “Any-Deer Permit” lottery in order to draw a second permit to kill antlerless (doe) deer. Does that make any sense to you? If we have extra deer why not first give the youth a shot at them (pun intended).

The committee is basically telling the youth they don’t give two rat’s behinds whether the children get to become lifelong hunters (maybe because they can’t buy the crooked bastard’s votes) but are sure willing to give the wealthy (vote buyers) a chance at more deer.

I don’t envy the job Camuso has facing her. It’s obvious the Legislature has their own crooked agenda and it doesn’t involve the future existence of hunting and fishing in the State of Maine.

Share

Maine’s Deer Yard Slaughters

It seems that all I am hearing about of late is the unbelievable slaughters taking place in some of Maine’s winter deer yards. Coyotes/coywolves are having a free-for-all feast. While anyone with a brain should know the implications of deep snow and prolonged deep snow, what I want to know is whether or not the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is having any regrets about issuing a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” (doe permits) that contributed to a substantial increase in the deer harvest this past Fall? I recall I asked if MDIFW considered the possibility of such a winter as this one BEFORE they issued the ADPs.

I doubt it.

Maine hunters should prepare for another multi-year drought of deer for hunting purposes – blamed, of course, on Climate Change. Bwhahahahahahahaah, Bwhahahahahahahahaha

Share

Filth in Politics Extends to Hunting

According to George Smith’s article yesterday on his blog, the idea of the Maine Legislature selling moose hunting permits to lodging establishments still runs controversial – as it should.

Smith says that last year the corrupt Legislature used 50 moose permits, valued at some $15,000 each to bribe voters. Oh, that’s not what they would call it but that’s what it was.

You see the Legislature bribes the Maine lodges and in return each “winner” of a moose permit must pay the Legislature a measly $1,500 for each permit. In an attempt to cover up their sin, the Legislature says it uses the money for, “the Moose Research and Management Fund.” How splendid. Is that the money used to determine how to socially best manage the number of moose?

It always amazes me how politicians can wallow in a big vat of excrement and crawl out of it thinking they don’t stink.

The moose lottery, as well as the “Any-Deer Permit” (ADP) allocations stink of political gerry-meandering. These items of bribery, favoritism, and elitism are used to benefit the wealthy – those that can further buy and influence elections.

The losers, of course, are the ignorant people who know no better. Propagandized to think the process of bribery funnels money into good projects, like the “Moose Research and Management Fund,” only steals away opportunities they could have had to fill their freezers. Whether it’s right or wrong matters not. This is corrupt, filthy politics running its course.

I’m surprised to discover the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) opposes the 50 moose permits being used for bribery. While the Legislature also gives away (bribes) all the ADPs to special interest groups, the MDIFW cow-tows to the demands of guides and outfitters when making decisions on hunting season dates and bag limits in order to keep them happy. Votes? Directly or indirectly that’s the politics behind all of this.

As the corrupt political process continues unfettered, in a brief period of time there will be no ADPs or moose permits available to the common citizen serf. And the lie we are told is that the game animals don’t belong to the king.

I have a bridge in New York I’d like to sell. Call 1-800-who-cares!

Share

Maine’s New Commissioner Intends to Recruit New Hunters, Anglers

In a Sun Journal article about Maine’s new commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (sorry, at this time the link in Google search is no good. Perhaps at a later time if you search “Meet the New Wildlife Boss: Judy Camuso” you will have better luck.), it is stated about Camuso that, “Her top goals are to recruit new people into the agency with the “Citizen Science Program,” recruit more hunters and anglers, and improve communication with the public about how they can participate in outdoor programs.” (emboldening added)

According to the latest report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the number of hunters and fishermen has seriously declined. From a high of 14.1 million hunters nationwide, that number is now down to 11.1 million.

According to this latest survey and previous ones, some of the major factors that have caused a drop in participation are, land access reductions, available time to hunt and fish, and opposition from environmentalists who oppose hunting and fishing.

I should like to take a moment and point out that although the same survey shows an increase in “wildlife watching” the numbers are misleading if not downright dishonest. Let me simply state that any hunter or fisherman is automatically labeled as a wildlife watcher whether that was their intent or not. So the numbers presented are not an exact representation of the number of people who purposely set out to “wildlife watch.”

If it is a top priority of Commissioner Camuso to recruit more hunters and fishermen, she has a monumental task before her. It has often been stated that although there may be somewhere around 10% of the nationwide population who hunt and fish, an overwhelming majority of people support hunting and fishing as part of a viable wildlife management program. Sadly, that support is dwindling.

One has to wonder what, exactly, can Camuso do to recruit sportsmen, when so many things are now stacked against such an attempt.

If land access is a big wall of prevention, what can the commissioner do to convince land owners to “tear down that wall?” Are there incentives worth pursuing that would prompt a landowner to offer access to their land for hunting and fishing? Some have tried. Few have succeeded. Are there fresh, new approaches to this dilemma? Maybe she has ideas that will work. Let’s hope.

I’m not sure how a wildlife commissioner would approach the problem of sportsmen claiming they don’t have time to hunt and fish like they used to or would like to. Economics is the driver of many things and when a person has to work to make ends meet, how do you convince them that they need to take the time off work to hunt and/or fish?

Perhaps the lack of motivation to take some time off is prompted by lousy hunting and fishing as well as a tiring of the opposition Maine has faced often in recent years from environmentalists and animal rights activists willing to spend millions of dollars to put an end to hunting and fishing. This all tends to spell more doom than encourage more participation.

Which brings me to the third part in this discussion. It would seem to me that if Maine could do a better job at providing bountiful game populations, mainly deer, recruiting would be easier. Deer hunting is really the cash cow but you wouldn’t know if from past management practices and the politics behind them. However, try as they may, the deck is stacked against such an approach.

With the exception of deer, Maine has an abundant bear population that needs to be better controlled. The turkey population is near out of control, judging by the number of landowner complaints and the visual of seeing turkeys overrunning peoples’ property. Moose have always been a favorite of both hunters and wildlife watchers, but managers don’t seem to understand the balance between a healthy moose population, void of deadly winter ticks, and the cash cow that comes from a moose lottery and moose gawking.

So generally speaking, Maine has an abundance of bear, turkey, and moose and yet there is a need for hunters to take this game but few are willing. Why? I hope Camuso has some answers. History shows us that public support is lost when that public sees these valuable game species as nothing but nuisances.

It would seem plausible to me that with so much game (not considering the deer) that’s one deterrent not missing and that the Department should be doing more to get hunters in pursuit. So far nothing has worked. Does Camuso have something up her sleeves? Let’s hope so.

I believe the biggest obstacle is the opposition that exists in this modern culture that have their ideas about animals out of skew. This includes some of the employees at MDIFW. While this opposition may not be that large in numbers – but those numbers are growing – they are well-funded and very vocal. Ongoing threats of lawsuits dampens the courage of any new commissioner regardless of their intentions.

Note: Camuso mentions that several in her department will be retiring and she will have jobs to fill. If she is serious about recruiting, she should make sure those that are hired are not environmental activists anchored in animal rights; that they are believers in the North American Model of Wildlife Management and that hunting, fishing, and trapping are integral and necessary parts of the management policy. It’s time to weed out those more interested in the rights of animals and their protection against hunting and fishing.

How do you curb these threats of lawsuits and do what you know is the right and scientific thing in a wildlife management plan?

The Maine Legislature stopped a recent bill that would have provided hunters with a chance to hunt bear in the Spring. When will the MDIFW stop caving in to the demands (always, always, always) of the Maine Guides Association and do what is scientifically right instead of what is politically best? And while I’m on this discussion, when will MDIFW stop attempting to responsibly manage wildlife when all decisions are too heavily influenced by social demands void of sound science?

Judy Camuso probably has great intentions when she says she wants to recruit more hunters and fishermen. If she is sincere about this and determined enough, there has to first be management changes within the department. Is she prepared to do that? Can she? Maybe?

During the latest anti-bear referendum, we got to see Camuso in action, working for the MDIFW, convincing the Maine population that baiting bear was a necessary part of bear management. It was a great job done and perhaps the one act in many years that gave hunters hope that proper and necessary management took a front seat to the demands of environmentalism. That act probably did more to save, or perhaps recruit, more hunters than anything else the department has done in many years.

Is there more where that came from? Was Judy Camuso’s actions at that time driven by her own perspective of things or was she just following orders from then commissioner Chandler Woodcock? I think we are going to find out…or at least I hope so and the sooner the better.

The new commissioner should take immediate action to save the hunters and anglers Maine already has and then head down that road that will actually recruit more of them.

A monumental task and good luck.

Share

Maine Leg. Committee Up and Down of Bill Votes

I recently wrote of the Maine Legislative Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s unanimous vote of “ought not to pass” on a bill that would have allowed for a Spring bear hunt. The JSC has been up to more tricks.

In a bill (LD27) that will allow the use of crossbows during the bowhunting season on deer was unanimously approved. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) commissioner, Judy Camuso, argued in favor of the crossbow use and even supported its use for turkey hunting. The JSC did not vote on such a move.

LD 79 is a bill that would grandfather any shooting range that existed before a recent bill banning shooting ranges within 100 yards of any building. The JSC was unanimous in its recommendation to pass.

A bill (LD 490) to expand the trapping season up to 21 days also passed the committee, while a bill (LD 525) to raise the registration fee for snowmobiles failed.

Next week the committee will vote on a brand new proposal from the Humane Society of the United States that would require all female bears to report to MDIFW headquarters in Augusta to receive the yearly supply of birth control pills. Bears wishing to avoid ingestion of chemicals can option for an IUD. (This is a joke. Ha Ha)

Share

Putting Firearm Safety Instruction Back in the Schools

David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, pens his thoughts on why Maine schools should put firearm safety instruction back in schools as a regular part of its curriculum.

Trahan writes: “When I was young, living in Clinton, firearm safety was taught in our town hall.  When hunting season came in the fall, I would carry my shotgun to class, where I would turn it over to my teacher, who would return it at the end of the day.”

Evidently I am a bit older than Mr. Trahan. When I was in school (high school) gym class included a few days dedicated to firearm safety. Class included bringing your gun to school and the teacher taught EVERYONE about proper use and safe handling. I remember practicing with a fellow classmate the proper way to climb over a fence with a rifle whether alone or with someone.

We did not, however, hand our guns over to the teacher until the end of the day. We either put them back in our cars or stored them in the gym locker until after school. We didn’t even consider it necessary to lock up the car or the locker. In those days there was enough respect that you wouldn’t steal and somewhere existed the thought that stealing a gun would likely put your own life in danger when caught.

Things have definitely changed and along with those changes is a loss in the ability to think and reason. Everyone had a gun. Everyone used a gun. Nobody feared for their life because their neighbor owned a gun. Guns were an integral part of life. And on top of all that nobody went around killing other people because they were screwed up in the head.

Essentially the gun has not changed in all these years. What has changed is the culture in which we live. It is immoral, perverse, and abusive to say the least. Our culture breeds violence. Violence is in our music, movies, video games, and books. It saturates all electronic devices. Violent games are rabidly promoted and targeted toward the youth of this country. And yet, in our brainless existence we think we can cure the problem of gun violence by banning the gun. Along with this call for banning, we see and hear other calls for “sensible” restrictions, background checks, banning styles of weapons (like if we ban “assault-style” weapons, like the kind our children learn to use in video games where killing is a measure of success, problems will go away), and an array of other absentminded solutions and never once uttering a claim that something is wrong with the culture that causes the violent acts in the first place.

Not that firearm safety education would be a wrong thing to do, but if we are truly seeking a stop to preventable violence, gun safety instruction, like most “sensible” laws, only target the lawful citizens.

By all means bring gun safety instruction back into all schools. But don’t be fooled into thinking it is a cure for the real issue nobody wants to discuss honestly.

Share

Maine Leg. Committee Nixes Bill for Spring Bear Hunt

The Maine Joint Standing Committee for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife voted 9-0 that a bill to allow for a Spring bear hunt “ought not to pass.” (Note: 4 members of the committee were absent. Were they out hunting piping plovers?)

Okay, so now we know that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) opposes a Spring bear hunt. Does MDIFW oppose that bear hunt because the Maine Guides Association is telling them to oppose it? Hmmmm.

So, what is the MDIFW going to do? Sounding like a broken record, they keep telling us that more bears need to be taken during bear hunting season to mitigate the growth of the animals that are presenting more and more public safety issues each year. And yet, there appears to be little MDIFW is willing to do to solve the problem. Maybe if they wait long enough, Global Warming will take care of the bears.

Who knows?

Share

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