May 23, 2018

Brainwashing and Fear of Government Causes Rabies Shots

We don’t really know who actually said, “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,” but it doesn’t matter because the statement makes a lot of sense.

Fear instilled in the masses is a great tool to control those masses and along with it, we see an eagerness of those fearful people to give up their liberties in exchange for false security.

When you combine this indoctrination and propagandizing that has been undertaken with the American people, with another form of brainwashing resulting in animal perversion you have instances like the one in Maine where an obviously sick bobcat doing “weird things” and attacking people, and nobody wanted or dared to shoot the animal in order to remove the imminent danger as well as put the animal out of its misery.

The report claims that in the instance where one man got attacked, bit, and scratched, even though he had a gun in his possession, said, “Her husband, John, and their son went outside to confirm the cat was not a lynx, which is protected, and to keep an eye on the animal while John called the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to confirm that he could shoot it. Plowden said her husband had been armed but set the gun down to make the phone call.”

Now the son and father are undergoing rabies shots.

Share

Maine Transmission Line Proposal Bringing Out the Best In Excuse Du Jour

This morning I was reading an article online at MainePublic.org about Central Maine Power Company’s proposal to run a 145-mile transmission line from Quebec, Canada through Central Maine eventually providing electricity to Massachusetts.

Environmentalists claim that the project is not a “green” one and thus would do nothing to stop the world from coming to an end due to global warming. Proposers of the project are confused wanting to know how much greener can you get than producing electricity from moving water.

Others don’t want to see more forest cut down to build a new and ugly transmission line or widen existing ones.

I’m reminded of an old story and have a suggestion of my own to help the cause.

First the story (which I have told on this website a million times). A man goes next door to his neighbor’s house and asks if he can borrow his ax. The neighbor, with a smile on his face, of course, says, “No, you can’t borrow my ax because it’s Tuesday.”

The man, acting very confused, like the representatives of CMP, asks, “What’s Tuesday got to do with it?”

“Nothing,” said the neighbor, “but if I don’t want to loan you my ax, one excuse is as good as another.”

The other is this. If you’ve ever been in the vicinity of Disney World in Orlando, Florida you might have noticed these somewhat unique transmission towers.

Simply beautiful aren’t they????

My suggestion would be to demand (wink-wink) that CMP constructs transmission towers in the form of a bull moose. This would be representative of Maine and it would solve part of the problem with reducing gases that cause global warming (we’re all gonna die). You see these moose don’t need to poop and thus no methane gases released. The project now becomes “GREEN!” THE WORLD IS SAVED and Massachusettes gets their electricity so they can further destroy the planet with everything else they do with it.

Oh, Lord! It’s hard to be humble.

Share

Deadline Approaches for Applying for Maine Moose Hunting Permit

*Editor’s Note* – It was noted by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW)that their ongoing moose study has indicated that a reduction in the moose herd will mitigate the winter tick problem. Does that mean there will be more moose permits issued during this lottery? This could be the last best chance you have of getting your hands on a moose permit. 

If MDIFW seriously intends to reduce the moose population in Maine to a level to reduce winter tick infestation, will we ever know at what level they intend to bring it down to…if at all? Understand that if MDIFW plans to lower the moose population and keep it that way, once the population is at target levels, more than likely the number of permits will be reduced as well. Then again, if the moose herd is “healthy” they may prosper to a point they will always need to be pared down. Wink-wink.

Apply for a permit

To hunt for moose in Maine, you will need a permit; and due to high demand, these permits are administered through a chance lottery.

Apply Online: visit to maine.gov/online/moose and fill out the online moose permit application. There, you’ll be able to indicate several preferences, including:

  • WMD preferences – which districts you’d be willing to accept a permit in, and if you’d accept a permit in another WMD if your name is drawn and all of your top choices are filled
  • Season preferences – if you only want to hunt in a specific month.
  • Antlerless preference – whether or not you would accept an antlerless permit.
  • Your sub-permittee – This is someone authorized to participate with you in your moose hunt. You can designate an alternate sub-permittee, and can apply with MDIFW to change either of these names up to 30 days before the hunting season begins.

Application Deadline: 11:59 p.m. on May 15, 2018

Want to be there for the drawing?

Attend the Skowhegan Moose Fest June 8-10 at the Skowhegan Fairgrounds (drawing will take place on June 9). More info: skoweganmoosefest.com

Share

Is Maine’s Big Game Management Plan Really Shifting Toward Focus on Animal Health Not Numbers?

If readers will recall, last week I commented on an article published in the Portland Press Herald that quoted a member of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) as saying, “There is no absolute density (number),” Cordes said. “There is more flexibility now in management.”

From this, the article indicated that MDIFW was shifting their focus to game animal health and away from population densities. Is this what’s really going to happen?

This all came about as a lead-in to announce that MDIFW was soon to release their Final Big Game Management Plan for the next 15 years. It should be understood that although these required management plans are written, they seldom are actually followed. I would imagine they go up on a shelf someplace and collect dust, perhaps being pulled down on occasion should the department have a need to placate the public with something like a mid-management plan rewrite to keep the masses of residents who care happy.

Consider what is written in this regard in the Draft plan: “It may not be necessary or feasible to implement all strategies in order to achieve the goals and objectives.”

So, for what it’s worth, I spent some time reading over the Draft Big Game Management Plan for 2017 – 2022 with a specific focus for this report on deer management goals and strategies. MDIFW has listed 3 specific goals of their plan. In addition, they have added “new” efforts to carry out the deer management plans. I’ll give you the 3 goals, in my own words, and list for you each of the “new” strategies to be employed along with MDIFW’s assessment of the level of priority they put with each new strategy followed by my own comments for some of them.

First, the 3 goals.

Goal #1 – Maintain a “healthy” deer herd for hunting and viewing.

Goal #2 – Keep the Public happy about the deer population.

Goal #3 – Increase “Public Understanding” (create new knowledge?) of biology, ecology, and management.

If the focus shift at MDIFW is going to be on deer health rather than population densities, isn’t the chore of keeping the Public happy about deer populations going to become just a bit more difficult?

Because we know that the management plans are written as part of the bureaucratic process and aren’t ironclad instructions on step by step procedures to manage deer, we also don’t know, and I can’t determine from reading the Draft Plan whether it is actually a written proposal to shift focus to animal health or whether the person from MDIFW in the PPH interview letting the Public know that his office intends to focus on animal health rather than population densities regardless of the Plan. This is government business as usual.

So here are some of the “new” additions to the deer management strategy that we are to presume will help to achieve the goal of a “healthy” deer population…along with how MDIFW prioritizes it.

Listed under Goal #1:

4. Explore options to identify habitat degradation due to over-abundance of white-tailed deer (New; Moderate Priority) Even though this is listed as of “Moderate Priority,” how much more difficult or effective will this proposal be with this new approach at deer health? To understand habitat degradation due to “over-abundance” of deer, doesn’t that require counting?

5. Evaluate early fawn mortality factors (New; Moderate Priority) My first question might be, why hasn’t MDIFW been doing this already? In a state where the majority of its land mass is quite significantly below management objectives, deer management 101 teaches us that fawn recruitment and/or fawn mortality is vital to sustaining/growing a deer herd. And, let’s not miss the point the point that it would seem that in order to understand fawn mortality factors, it should require COUNTING.

6. Evaluate the effectiveness of the coyote predation management program and identify options for improvement (New; High Priority) We know the MDIFW has been undertaking some form of predator control to help protect the deer herd particularly in winter. One might quickly think the idea to “evaluate” usually means the plan is to get rid of it. However, this new proposal speaks of discovering ways to improve it. That’s a good thing, and I’m glad it’s listed as a high priority.

Listed under Goal #2:

3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Expanded Archery Program in managing deer-human conflicts (New; Moderate Priority) Looks to me like more counting. Geez, it’s just hard to get away from having to know how many animals there are. And, I always thought that knowledge of good deer management included the fact that managing deer at the “biological capacity” provided for a healthy herd. But I do understand that all important “flexibility” that gives managers another good excuse…kind of like global warming.

2. Develop a certification program for hunters (e.g. Marsh Island deer hunt) that would authorize participation in special urban deer hunts (New; Moderate Priority) This may prove more beneficial to a lot more people than just hiring sharpshooters.

Listed under Goal #3:

Develop a strategic outreach plan for deer and use the MDIFW Communication Program to disseminate key messages to the public (New; Moderate Priority) I’d like to see this. It wouldn’t take a lot to improve the communication of important information from MDIFW to the Public.

Work with partners to develop a mentoring program that encourages deer hunting. (New; Low Priority) Low Priority? Hmm

Conduct regular public meetings on deer management (New; High Priority) Never happen, and/or won’t last. Even if MDIFW had “regular” public meetings, nobody would show up and it would be a waste of time.

Expected Outcomes:

MDIFW lists what it thinks might happen IF they were to successfully carry out this 15-year management plan for deer. Here’s what they write:

5.6 Expected Outcomes for White-tailed Deer Management

Implementing the deer management strategies in this plan will require adequate staffing, funding, and public support. It may not be necessary or feasible to implement all strategies in order to achieve the goals and objectives. If MDIFW and its partners are successful managing deer over the next 10 years, the following outcomes are anticipated:

• The statewide over-wintering deer population averages 210,000 animals.

• The percentage of the public rating the management of deer as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ increases to 75% by 2022.

• Public support for deer hunting to manage the population remains at or above 90%. • Annual hunter participation of ? 150,000 hunters.

• Statewide hunter satisfaction with Maine’s Deer Management Program increases to >85% by 2022.

• Northeast Maine hunter satisfaction ?80%

• Central Maine hunter satisfaction ?85%

• Southern Maine hunter satisfaction ?90%

• An average annual statewide buck harvest of at least 15,000 animals is maintained

• Seven year running average of the percentage of yearlings in the buck harvest remains below 50%

• Any-deer permits generally available in WMDs 15-17, 20-25, and 29, with permits issued in other WMDs during some years.

All of this sure looks like a lot of counting…that is if there is any serious attempt at implementing and working at this deer management plan. It is impossible to effectively manage any game herd without a minimum of reasonable, scientific methods of devising estimates of population densities – the more accurate that estimation becomes the more precise and effective management strategies become.

To announce a shift from this method of deer management to one of concentrating on the health of the herd, stating that it will give management more “flexibility” is utter environmental nonsense – Romance Biology and Voodoo Science. Like imposing the effects of Climate Change on every failure of wildlife management, as if they needed more “flexibility.” I can see the headlines now: Maine’s deer harvest this year was lower than expected. That’s because we now have a healthy herd despite Climate Change.

However, MDIFW is going to do what MDIFW is going to do and that’s the bottom line. After all, they are a government agency. Need I say more?

 

Share

Political Partisanship is Caused by Term Limits?

I got quite a kick out of reading former Attorney General Jon Lund’s and former Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, George Smith’s perspective on term limits and the call to get rid of them. A clear example of seeing the glass either half empty or half full or long-term “experienced” politicians vs. greenhorns who don’t know how to play the game devised over many years by “experienced” members of the Maine Legislature and leadership.

Perhaps the real problem with “term limits” is they are not term limits at all. If it takes more than 8, 10, or 16 years learn who’s palm gets greased and who does the greasing and what it is that is getting greased, isn’t that the real reason for term limits? The other argument is that no legislative position, once designed to be filled by part-time volunteer community service, should be recognized and treated as a career. Has one’s imagination and reality become so clouded that we cannot see the problems with career politicians at every level? Evidently. Try blowing the smoke away or remove yourself from the accepted status quo long enough to see what the rest of us see.

Lund describes term limits as causing the loss of “the opportunity to develop and retain experienced and skillful leadership and a cadre of experienced legislators.”  There’s more than one way to look at this. Why is there a need to “develop” politicians? It is made to sound like when a person enters the fray in Augusta for the first time, they are told what they will do and how they will do it…or else. Oh, wait a minute. That is exactly how it is done according to some former Maine legislators that I have talked with. Once you have proven that you are agreeable to play politics according to the whims of those who got “developed” and “retained” by the previous good-ole-boys, then you can become one of them and with this, evidently, it is what Smith and Lund describe as “credibility.”

Lund further states: “…in order to gain credibility with their peers, a first-term legislator needs to say very little and carefully develop expertise.” Need I say more. What is wrong with a system in which when a perfectly intelligent person walks into the halls of the Legislature on that very first day and is expected by the sitting leadership to “say very little and carefully develop expertise?” There’s that word develop again. And what is expertise? Is that conforming to the way it’s always been or you’re outta here?!?!?

The author claims it takes time to “…learn the legislative process, develop leadership skills, and gain the confidence of fellow legislators.” For what purpose? How many brains does it take to learn a legislative process unless that process includes learning how things get done in Augusta? Isn’t the argument, or at least part of it, that carrying out the legislative business the way it’s always been carried out, complete with doing what you are told for long enough to “earn credibility” the problem?

And lastly, Lund blames the partisanship in Augusta on term limits: “…we did not experience the paralyzing partisanship that appears to mark the State House today. I attribute the difference, in part, to the presence of a larger proportion of experienced members in the Legislature.” (Note: I’m guessing this is a typo. Either the author meant to use the word “inexperienced” or he just seriously contradicted his entire argument of attempting to blame partisanship on term limits.)

According to Mr. Lund then there are two options available – get rid of term limits and fill the seats in Augusta with all the most experienced “politicians” completely bought and paid for so that they can get done only those things they want to be done, or, implement real term limits of one term of four years in either house…period – end of discussion. The way Smith and Lund describe it there’s only a handful of robotic puppets capable of carrying out the business of running the State of Maine. The rest of us are just too stupid. Some have argued that nobody wants the job. That may be true but have you ever considered that there would be little desire for a job that once you get there you are told to sit down and shut up because you haven’t learned how WE do things around here?

Smith mostly parrots what Lund says and says being in Augusta isn’t “fun” anymore because of term limits. He too says that lack of “experience” doesn’t make it fun anymore – no more going out to lunch and socializing like the good-ole-days.

Confusing to me, Smith cites an example of a friend of his who “in just his second term” and made the head of the Fish and Wildlife Committee, was a lone dissenter on a bill being discussed. This friend “fought his committee for several hours in a House debate, angering many of them.” And because this guy had a mind of his own and argued his case, he is unqualified to be a legislator? Would he then have had “credibility” if he just sat down and shut up and went along to get along?

The longer politicians spend in office the potential becomes exponential in the amount of corruption that can and does take place. There are many Maine citizens very capable of carrying out the business of the Maine Legislature without having first to pay tribute to the rank and file “credible” and “experienced” politicians. Isn’t this the very reason there is no respect among the citizens for politicians and they find the idea of serving in a legislative position akin to walking on hot coals?

Share

If You Have No Intention to Count Live Deer, Why Bother to Count Dead Ones

Share

Old Hunter says, “Maybe There’s a Connection Between Bad Management and Fewer Hunters

Share

More Flexibility In Deer Management Means There Is No Accountability

Word on the street is that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is about to release their 15-year management plans for deer, bear, moose, and turkey. I’ll reserve space and time for when the written plans are made available and I have a chance to read and digest them before I make too many comments.

However, there are two items in an article in the Portland Press Herald that caught my attention. I’ll start with some apparent good news: “The 5-year moose radio collar study has shown that the population will be more resistant to winter tick infestation if it’s smaller – rather than larger for easier wildlife watching – so more hunting permits will be issued, said Wildlife Division Director Judy Camuso.”

Let’s hope that the increase in permits and the reduction in moose is significant to get the job done. Thank you MDIFW for taking this direction.

Now the bad news: “There is no absolute density (number),” Cordes said. “There is more flexibility now in management.” What this statement is referring to is that the management plan for big game will no longer include efforts to estimate population numbers. Evidently, this is not reserved strictly for deer but for all big game. Instead, management officials will focus on the health of the population of deer, moose, bear, and turkey.

And for those who buy into this scientism form of unaccountable, rely on Climate Change for answers to all things management, “flexibility in management” means they lie, cheat, and steal and we aren’t supposed to know about it. That is historically the ONLY definition of flexibility in government.

Yes, I’m of an older generation (a much better one) where it was expected of you to be accountable and accurate. Then one day I heard that doing math problems evidently gave the students and teachers “more flexibility” because it didn’t matter whether you came up the correct answer, it was whether you got the process right. HOT DAMN! Flexibility meant I only had to do half the amount of work. It was easier to fake the rest.

If numbers will no longer be a part of management, I suppose that will be justification for never publishing harvest data. Instead, MDIFW can publish one big page on their website or in the newspapers that read: “Deer/Bear/Moose/Turkey are healthy.” Our job is done and we did a good job…damn I just wrenched my shoulder patting myself on the back.

Flexibility!!!! Got it.

 

Share

Reasonable Assessment of Quebec Hydro Transmission Line Through Maine if the Ridiculous Climate Change Nonsense Was Left Out

One will have to decide for themselves about whether widening and cutting another electric power transmission line through Maine is an eyesore and/or whether it is in anyway actually beneficial to the Maine people.

In a Bangor News opinion piece, Steve Bien, a board member of the Western Maine Audubon society, a totalitarian environmentalist group, fills readers full of climate change balderdash and toxic waste from rotting plants and vegetation from flooded lands caused by Quebec hydro dam building.

Please, give us all a break from the BS.

Nothing in this proposal has anything to do with climate change and “green” energy and how we are going to save the planet. Save the planet, save the planet, save the planet. I’m not the only intelligent person in this world who tires from the endless clap-trap about Climate Change.

This writer tells us of how important it is that we replace carbon-heavy energy with “green” energy so as not to cause more global warming. Horsepucky!

In addition, we’re all going to die from mercury poisoning as the author states that mercury levels have been in the blood of the Cree and Innu for 50 years. What is not said is that mercury levels were in their ancestor’s blood as well because it is naturally occurring.

However, the nonsense about the dangers from “Plant decomposition on a massive scale produces toxic amounts of mercury” and this “massive” amount of toxic mercury is “…far beyond the cleaning capacity of natural systems” – Oh my God, we’re ALL GONNA DIE!! And if that isn’t enough the “major source of carbon dioxide and methane” from flooded plants will surely do us all in. Poor Mother Gaia can’t keep up with the scrubbing.

WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! PREPARE FOR THE DOOM!!!

The amount of land flooded in Quebec amounts to about the same as adding an eyedropper of pee-pee to an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Leave out all the lying BS about “clean” energy and “green” energy and how Climate Change is killing us, and make your decisions based upon actual facts that lay in front of you. What’s in the proposal for Maine? It should be obvious what’s in it for Quebec Hydro, CMP, and Massachusetts. But what’s in it for Maine besides a few quick bucks?

Is it really an environmental disaster? Is it really a blight on the land? Is the exchange for a few dollars worth it? Will this event bring lower electric rates to Maine?

Forget Climate Change. It’s nothing more than an environmentalist’s midsummer nights’ dream.

Share

And Maine’s Deer Harvest Data is………….?

Missing in action!!!

Share