February 21, 2019

Maine Legislature To Consider 14 “Gestapoesque” Gun Bills

With the Democrats taking over the Maine Legislature, as near as I can tell they plan to introduce a minimum of 12 gun control, rights destroying bills that will do nothing to stop what it is the progressives believe they can stop. So, what else is new?

Without having the text of each and every bill, at this point all we can do is go by the titles of the bills. For those with a brain, we know that most bill’s titles are deceptive at best and an outright lie in most cases.

If we examine the titles, the Democrats intend to ban large capacity magazines (whatever that is); protect children by requiring safe storage of guns (whatever that is); mandatory background checks for anyone who even thinks about a gun (whatever that is); a prohibition that would stop “extremely dangerous and suicidal individuals” (whatever that is) from owning a gun; allow municipalities to ban guns wherever they choose; establish a “voluntary” (whatever that is) gun collection day (all unwanted guns can be dropped off at my house); waiting periods they believe will reduce suicides and violent crimes (chuckle).

What a waste of time.

I would suppose we can also expect abortions to increase, Welfare to explode, illegal immigration to expand exponentially, unemployment to go up and free CELLPHONES for everyone.

Share

Frustrations In Dealing With Rigged Systems

Most fail to even recognize that our trapped existence takes place within a politically rigged system – at all levels – designed by man for man. Those of us who completely understand this presence avoid it like a wicked plague. Most get frustrated by failures in getting their idealisms pushed through governmental agencies that don’t operate on the same plain as our captive existence.

I was reading a piece the other day from someone exemplifying this very reality. The frustrations where spelled out in disheartening text, sharing such depressing news of how, in his opinion, our government – legislators and administrative departments – don’t do as the people ask, even extolling misguided beliefs that our legislators, as commissioned by their vote, are required to bring to the Legislature all proposed rules and regulations all of which are designed, either purposely or ignorantly, to further repress a once freer society.

Of course our government institutions don’t do as the people want. They do as the People want, but few understand that concept.

We’ve been trained to believe we live in a democracy…as though a democracy was a good thing. The best known definition of democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for lunch. And somehow this is sought after by some? The wolves no doubt.

The frustration exhibited in the piece I’ve referred to is that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) won’t have public hearings and full panel discussions on every proposal any person has ever thought of. The writer exclaims the system is, “…not as it should be.

I might agree with such an assessment however, it appears that according to this writer the way it should be is more personal idealism than realism. In this case the frustration might be more fueled by a person not getting his way most of time rather than the system “not as it should be.”

Then things get confusing. The frustration with the system, described as “the antithesis of democracy, as well as the undermining and ultimate suppression of citizens’ rights,” turns to resentment and whining because the system won’t do things his way. The writer then begins to blame everything on the special interest groups – those groups of course he does not support – and how such special interest groups represent a minority. Is this what his idea of democracy is? That only the majority have a “right” to complain? When we don’t get our way, it seems to be quite normal to blame it on everything but what it is. Blaming special interest groups – in this case hunters, trappers, and fishermen – is a much easier task than learning about and then explaining why our system is rigged and does not operate the way we have all been taught, and then discovering what can be done to change this reality.

In frustration, the author writes, “Let’s not forget that Maine’s wildlife is a vital part of the public domain, not some group’s private preserve to do with as they wish. Just as motorists don’t own public roads, boaters and swimmers don’t own public lakes, hikers don’t own public land, anglers don’t own the fish who [fish should not be referred to as a who. They are not people.] live in public ponds and streams, so hunters and trappers don’t own the state’s wildlife.”

I understand the frustration…really, I do, but, on the same token a voter does not own every proposed piece of legislation. The writer makes it sound like hunters, motorists, boaters, swimmers, hikers, and anglers enjoy unfettered access to any and all wildlife and lands and waters. I believe the argument could honestly be made that those special interest groups experience just as many frustrations as this writer. There is no need to suppress the frustrations and desires of one group over another so that a rigged system might operate as one might suggest it ought to in order to get their way.

It’s difficult to take the complaints seriously from those who stand up in support of democracy and in the same breath speak out against the symptoms of democracy. That makes little sense. If democracy is the form of servitude rule you desire, then your only recourse is to be subject to the rigors of democracy. In other words, sometimes you are the sheep.

Perhaps if the writer, instead of saying the system isn’t working the way he thinks it’s supposed to, had said the system isn’t working the way HE wants it to, would have been more accurate.

We all experience the same frustrations. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and sometimes the squeaky wheel is not the wheel we choose. One thing is for certain. You can’t change a rigged system by employing the rigged system to fix itself. Insanity dictates it’s time to change.

Share

Statistics Prove Statistics Can Prove Anything

I’ve used this line before. It’s difficult to pin down exactly where or from whom specifically this quote came from, but the real problem lies in the understanding of statistics. I like the explanation found on Quora.com. It reads: “Statistics is only the representation of an empirical fact, a connection between abstract representations of real world concepts. By itself, it can prove nothing except the dry statement of an idealized probability. What the public often overlooks is that correlation does not imply causation.”

Some in Maine seem to be upset by some numbers recently published in a local newspaper’s opinion column that Wildlife Watching in Maine generates $1.3 billion in revenue to the state. Can this be so?

Not exactly, if you have a basic understanding of how the numbers (statistics) are manipulated by anyone to prove anything.

In December of 2017, the Portland Press Herald published an article that stated that according to the Maine Office of Tourism, the state took in revenues of $8.8 billion from general tourism. Keep in mind here that we are not working on any set definition of “tourism.” That is the first problem. I’ve spent a great deal of time over the years examining and researching surveys, questionnaires, polls, etc. and there exists a lot of gray area…by design. This allows for anyone to use those “statistics” to prove anything their little heart desires. I do not have time or space to write the book required to cover the dynamics of surveys and statistics.

But for the sake of this discussion, let’s go with the $8.8 in tourism revenue. According to the same Portland Press Herald (PPH) article, of that $8.8 billion, 28% of 1,407 tourists surveyed said they preferred wildlife watching “to all other touring activities, such as enjoying ocean views or fall foliage or sightseeing.” (is this a scientific survey?)

What does that mean? Not much really, for two very basic reasons. One, we don’t know what constitutes “tourism” as it pertains to the Maine Office of Tourism. Two, given no other statistical data, we don’t know how many of whom preferred what, when, where, and how. Is 28% of the total tourism revenue generated average nationwide? Below average? Above average? Who conducted the “query” the Office of Tourism refers to and who paid for it.? Just what exactly is represented by this 28%????

Are you following along?

If 28% of Maine tourists, preferred wildlife watching over all others, did 100% of those 28% participate in Wildlife Watching which contributed to the $8.8 billion? Who knows. 28% of those surveyed may “prefer” wildlife watching but perhaps only 2% actually did it. By the way, what constitutes “wildlife watching?”

Anyone can do anything with these numbers. Taken at face value (if that fits my narrative), 28% of $8.8 billion dollars is nearly $2.5 billion. Therefore, I could say that wildlife watching in Maine generates around $2.5 billion a year in tourist-generated revenue. Is that accurate? Is that honest?

For the numbers nerd, you can take any of these base numbers and percentages and create anything you wish.

A few years ago, I spent a great deal of time studying, in order to fully and honestly understand, how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts their surveys in which they dazzle us with all kinds of statistics about hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, etc. for each and every state. I believe this is done or used to be done, every 5 years.

Aside from the muddled information I’ve given you above used to manipulate statistics, the biggest takeaway I got was how questions were asked and then how answers were handled according to their application in compiling data.

For example: If John Doe decides to take a lifelong big game hunting trip to Western Montana, and while he is there is confronted with a survey taker, he might be asked questions like: Why did you come to Montana?; Did you visit Yellowstone Park?; Did you see any wolves?; Did you go fishing?; Did you stay in a motel?; Did you hire guide services?; Did you go hiking? etc.

As you can see, the sky is the limit on what questions could be asked of a “Tourist.” In this case, if John Doe answered yes to all of these questions, after being discovered he came for a hunting trip, then the data would be recorded that he participated in all those activities. If John Doe spent $50,000 on his trip, then the data could, and most often is, manipulated to state that John Doe spent $50,000 hunting; that he spent $50,000 to visit Yellowstone Park to watch wolves and go hiking; that he spent $50,000 to go fishing, stay in a motel, hire guides, buy gas, buy food. I think you get the picture.

This is how it all works. This is why I take a very vocal stand against governments or any other organization using surveys and the like to draw conclusions. That’s a form of Scientism and outcome-based VooDoo Science. The results presented are dishonest and politically driven.

When addressing the comments of people with political agendas, recall the simple statement that statistics used to make such claims can prove: “nothing except the dry statement of an idealized probability.” 

It might even be more accurate to call it an “idealized POSSIBILITY.”

And, just remember. More than likely the person parroting the numbers is only repeating those given them by other echo-chambers who know no better. That’s why it pays to know and understand your resource for information. There’s more to it than it just sounds good.

Share

Should Maine’s Newly Elected Governor Put Black Bear Management in Hands of Planned Parenthood?

I was reading just yesterday a comment left online by a reader about bear hunting practices. The comment, as a plea to newly elected governor, Janet Mills, said something like, no animal has a chance when up against humans and their man-made weapons. They also added that Maine has no laws to protect animals.

Think about that for a moment. The plea is for protection of animals, so that no animal can be killed by humans for any reason…it appears. If the plea goes out to Governor Janet Mills, perhaps Gov. Mills might consider placing the management and protection of black bears in the hands of Planned Parenthood…or maybe not.

Planned Parenthood gave Janet Mills a 100% rating for her support of abortion of human infants. What does this tell us? Many things I would suppose. The first being that she might just value the lives of bears over those of humans. Of course the argument would be that an unborn child is not a living being and thus I am comparing apples with oranges.

If that is the case, then perhaps Maine should consider taking up the practice of aborting unborn bear fetuses while in hibernation. After all, if human fetuses and not human lifeforms, certainly bear fetuses are not bear lifeforms. Maine has an extensive bear study and management program where bear dens are visited on a regular basis. Before any bear cubs are born, biologists could drag the female bear from the den and kill her unborn cubs. Surely that would reduce the bear population. We can’t have more and more bears living on the landscape that are becoming a burden on society and taking away other bear’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of junk food.

There is something seriously wrong with a society that would advocate for more laws to protect animals but at the same time support the evil practice of murdering unborn babies. Maine’s new governor supports that practice. By comparison, those who support abortion “rights” also support animal rights.

SICK!

Share

Maybe More Junk Food For Bears Is The Answer

I find reading in echo-chambers of the press nonsensical articles that make little or no sense. I think most of it is a reflection of ignorance and laziness.

I’ve been reading how there has been a spike in bear and human conflicts in the Northeast this year. It appears the major excuse given is that there was a scarcity of natural food, causing the bears to seek any food source anywhere they could. Along with this, more conflict bears had to be killed because of risks of public safety…or something.

If I was to use the same sort of warped, circular thinking of many who don’t want to see any animal killed for any reason, I would first have to ask the question as to whether or not baiting bears during bear hunting season is a method of reducing bear conflicts with humans.

The argument always seems to focus around food supply as to what mostly effects bears’ behavior. If the thinking is that there are more bear conflicts and more deaths of baby bears due to lack of natural food, then perhaps on those lean years we should systematically set up bear feeding stations to reduce cub mortality and public safety issues.

Not really, but I hope you get my point.

Circular and illogical thinking causes a person to believe, according to those opposed to baiting bear, that bears would stay in the forest where the junk food was rather than come out and bother or harm people.

Just practicing the kind of thinking as of others, hurts my brain.

Also, according to what we have always been told that in those years of lacking natural food, bears are more readily drawn to bait pile and thus the success of bear hunters goes up.

With the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife now using that instant tagging data, we already know, er, uh, hmmm….NOTHING. If anyone has seen any kind of public release of bear harvest numbers for the 2018 bear hunt, please let me know.

Share

The Results of Socialistic Romance Biology Wildlife Management and Scape-Goating

I just can’t seem to leave this subject alone. I get angry when I see governments doing what governments do. The time and money wasted on useless, post-normal, bureaucratic B.S. that ends in worthless and trivial nonsense that amounts to no more than a hill of ________. (You fill in the blank.)

Earlier I wrote about Maine’s plan to subcontract out a portion of their black bear management plan. In that article I made the comment: “…why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

“Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?”

And then it donned on me. Recently the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) took a similar tactic when they wasted (in my opinion) money hiring a scientismistic private entity to conduct a “survey” to help MDIFW decide how they should do their jobs. It has always puzzled me that MDIFW refuses to open their ears and communicate with the boots-on-the-ground outdoors people but are eager and willing to hire some environmentalist-trained, biased company to tell them how to manage wildlife and outdoor recreation when said company knows squat about Maine or the people in it.

We have seen results of this corrupt environmentalist, Human Interaction, “survey” in the recent big game management plans. I think MDIFW seeking “outside” assistance is just another nail in the coffin to go along with the fraudulent management plans that apparently the department is incapable of crafting or too scared to do without laying the blame and responsibility on the results of the survey, i.e. some outside private business for profit entity.

When you combine the actions of MDIFW leadership over the past 2 or 3 years, I am left with no other explanation as to why Maine, once thought of as the leader in wildlife management, also once a leader in big game hunting and world class fishing, is so eager to do a double-flush of the toilet making sure all that was once good is now gone.

When nothing changes with the bear management plans and reaching the goals crafted in the new plan is a failure, MDIFW can conveniently blame whoever or whatever it is that told them what they ought to do.

MDIFW has had multiple recommendations pushed in front of them concerning bear management. It’s laughable that MDIFW will buckle and cave to the demands of environmentalists and guides, refusing to do anything constructive to reduce the bear population out of fear of reprisals from guides, environmentalists, and animal rights groups, while shutting their ears and eyes to the real sportsmen. And then, we see this act of seeking an outside opinion. You can’t make this stuff up.

Because MDIFW refuses to do what’s right, they are slaves to guides, outfitters and the environmental movement. The result, they claim, is they can’t find (wink-wink) a solution to the supposed bear problem.

What will we hear next? MDIFW has decided to award their bear management subcontract to a subsidiary of the Humane Society of the United States based in China?

Share

The Mythical Bear Study Extremists Seem to Adore

The other day I wrote about how the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) announced that it was seeking bids from private enterprise to assist them with devising a “model” to better control the black bear population in Maine.

*Important Note*(I find that the MDIFW’s credibility on wildlife management issues dwindles the more they talk. Maybe that’s why they are so close-lipped about many things. I say this because here we have a situation in which the MDIFW is coming off announcements of the release of their future big game management plans which calls for less focus on counting the numbers of deer, bear, moose, turkeys, etc. and placing more focus on a “healthy” population. Evidently, MDIFW is discovering how difficult it must be for them to manage these game species without spending time counting. As such, it now appears the MDIFW has reached out to private enterprise to help them COUNT.)

As a result of the latest announcement of seeking outside help, the Media has erupted with information from every Tom (LOL), Dick, and Harry either for or against this idea, which seems to be going hand in hand with the announcement that newly elected governor Janet Mills has selected the current head of the Division of Wildlife at MDIFW, Judy Camuso, to be the next commissioner of the department.

In the fray, it seems members of the media and heads of animal rights groups have crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Mills’ appointment of Camuso is a big mistake because she did her job under Commissioner Woodcock and was his mouthpiece during the last bear referendum.

It should be noted that these groups and much of the echo-chamber Press, will not give up this fight until they get what they want. Eventually, they will.

In many a previous discussion about bear hunting, more specifically using bait as a hunting method, those who opposed baiting bear (realistically they oppose all hunting regardless of method.) have never had any “scientific” studies to support their claims, until 4 people from the University of Southern Maine created a study of their own – a “model” I might add, and most of us should know by now what modeling does when it comes to science. Which brings me to the point of this article.

The so-called “study” can be found at this link.

I’m not going to spend a great deal of time going through the entire study to point out the flaws. However, in order that people can make intelligent decisions, especially when it comes to voter referendums, somebody ought to tell the truth and point out the realities, especially when it comes to such things as “models” used as a “scientific” foundation to build a political argument.

First, I should say that it is my opinion that much of what was published in this study is credible, however falsely based on Natural Regulation. What is missing is information that would seriously manipulate the results that were concluded from the modeling done. Unless, you are intelligent enough to read and understand the entire study, cherry picking quotes and statements here and there to promote one’s agenda is dishonest at best.

Throughout the study, the authors repeatedly state that they “made assumptions” and purposely did not include data that would have altered the results of the study, but stated they “were satisfied with the outcomes.” *Note* – If the outcome is what is desired, what’s not to be satisfied about it?

When anyone models information to arrive at some kind of conclusion, it is far too easy to manipulate the input in order to obtain a desired outcome. This outcome, it is realized, becomes a powerful tool for the very same reason that animal rights groups are cherry-picking information to substantiate their agendas. This is precisely the definition of “Scientism.”

I doubt that the authors of this study are any more qualified to create it than I am. I will note that references and resources, of course were hand-picked. In addition, I will give very little credibility to any information used as a reference in a so-called scientific study that uses Wikipedia. If you don’t understand this statement then you will not understand the basis of my entire article.

Modeling, as I said, is far too easy to manipulate input to get the output desired. I’m not definitively saying the authors deliberately went out of their way to devise the outcome they desired. Only you can make that assessment yourselves.

Therefore, guess work and estimates are useless in deriving any conclusions that are anything but guess work and estimates – garbage in and garbage out.

Data used by the study writers, included data that comes from the MDIFW website. Ironic isn’t it that those animal rights advocates will jump all over hand-selected data from this study (much of which comes from MDIFW) to aid and abet their passions but in the same breath curse the department for being ignorant of bear management. How is that?

The MDIFW will be the first to admit their data on species populations are estimates – estimate in, estimate out. Studies and Modeling supports estimates and guesses.

Even though as I stated, much of what is written is reasonable if only it was more honestly stated that their results are only estimates of the inexact data they had to work with. The truth is there are so many variables in the life cycles, ecosystem changes, and management plans, attempting to claim that baiting bears causing the population to grow is really quite dishonest.

Too many simplistic assumptions are made in order for the authors to reach the conclusions that they did. One that just kept jumping out at me was the bulk of their modeling and the results they obtained were based on the belief that in the late Summer and early Fall, when bear hunting and baiting is being done, bears naturally eat only beechnuts. Really? In off years and in areas where there are no beech trees, the poor bears must starve to death.

As the study states, most biologist agree that bears prefer natural food over the slop baiters put out to entice them, and yet, so many conclusions are made based on this notion that bears eat only beechnuts in the Fall.

Another issue I find incomplete, or dishonest if that’s what you choose to believe, is the study doesn’t even mention where baiting takes place and how the food used in baiting can contribute to a false “carry capacity” as a percentage of the total statewide bear population. If it is true that baiting bears contributes millions of calories and 7 million pounds of “unnatural” food for bears, what is the percentage of bears that are actually getting bait food versus those that never see it, or at least what comes in a barrel in the middle of the woods? This study is void of such discussion.

I will repeat, there are just too many variables to be able to make the claims these authors did that baiting bears causes the population statewide to increase every year, evidently with no end in sight.

I will also point out that much of the information contained in this study is based on the myth of natural regulation. Figures and formulas are presented based on the theory of natural regulation. There is no such thing in the context of which it was presented in this study. Natural Regulation, perhaps more accurately described as Natural Irregularity, everything is a constant changing of positive and negative feedback loops. These loops provide large swings up and down of species population. Odd that these authors even used their own devised positive and negative feedback loops and yet somehow those loops only contribute to a growing bear population when baiting is being done.

But we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Although many choose to only hand-select information that benefits them and their political agendas, the authors offer conclusions and remedies to what they perceive as a management problem. Let’s look.

The authors conclude that bear baiting increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” and based on their findings the current bear management plan will not reduce the bear population. *Note*If baiting of bears increases the bears’ “ecosystem carrying capacity,” then in theory, and using the same logic used in this modeling, unless there is a constant increase in the number of bear hunters and the amount of bait being spread throughout the bears’ ecosystem, then why doesn’t the “false” carrying capacity created by baiting, level off and thus the population of bears level off as part of their false natural regulation?

I think I would have to agree with at least the part that says that unless the MDIFW changes something the bear population is going to continue to grow provided all other variables remain relatively constant.

The authors make recommendations as to what MDIFW can do. It might appear to me that all of those opposed to bear hunting deliberately avoid mentioning these recommendations. Who can blame them? I might add that these animal rights people want only hunting, trapping, and fishing to be banned and let “Natural Regulation” take over. Part of me wishes this would happen just so I can say I told you so.

The recommendations given in a nutshell are these:

First, ban baiting. Their model “suggests” if baiting was banned only about 700 fewer bears would be killed. (Note – I wonder if that number includes any of the bears they chose to not include in the model that shows baiting grows the population?)

Second, encourage the hunting of female bears and cubs. GASP!!! How dare anyone whose data I used to promote anti-hunting agendas suggest killing momma and baby bears!! GASP!! (again)

Third – and this is the one that floors me – continue the use of bait but switch the bait from junk food to “natural beechnuts.” Say what? If the argument is that baiting artificially grows the carrying capacity and thus artificially grows the population, how then is switching the bait going to change much. Is it that we have now become more and more conscious of the bears’ diet? Yes, I have also read that as well.

So where do the beechnuts come from? Doing a quick Google search I couldn’t find any stores that market and sell beechnuts. So……? Are hunters and guides supposed to start collecting bushel baskets and hiring people to go out and pick beechnuts to bait deer with? Maybe there’s an after-school job for some young boys and girls harvesting beechnuts to provide bear guides with bait.

If the bait used for bear hunting is supposed to be changed from junk food to natural beechnuts, the ONLY way I know of to do this without altering the natural ecosystem carrying capacity, is to pick the beechnuts from the trees within that ecosystem and make feeding by the bears easier. Remember in the “regulated” world of Natural Regulation, beechnuts cannot be brought into an area where they did not naturally appear, otherwise what’s the difference in what you use for bait unless the concern is to provide a healthy diet and cut down on tooth decay in bears?

Part of the circular, confusing reasoning used in this study, the conclusions derived, and suggestions made shows up when the authors suggest that introducing bears to human food will, “teach bears to associate humans with food.” Smart critters aren’t they. I’ve always asked the question and never given an honest answer, if bears are so damned smart that they learn to associate human food with humans, are they equally as smart to learn that human food might mean a bullet in the butt?

There will always be disagreements with wildlife management. In recent years, as the culture of this nation morphs into something I perceive as perverted, things have gone far beyond disagreements in wildlife management practices. They have gone to a point where people are demanding an end to long-held traditions of hunting, trapping, and fishing. Their beliefs cause them to take whatever direction they need to in order to get their way.

Ironic it is, that some who advocate for animals rights and protection, even wishing to deny a person’s inalienable right to eat the foods that LORD GOD ALMIGHTY provided us, take offense to anyone who counters their idealistic Romance Biology, as though we are supposed to just shut up and do as we are told…by them.

Share

Politics, Culture, Environmentalism, Set To Maine Looking to Compromise Black Bear Management

It certainly appears to me that Maine is being set up for changes that are sure to destroy much of what is left of a once-scientific wildlife management department.

Headlining the news around the Pine Tree State, is the announcement that the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) is seeking bids from private businesses to establish a “model” that can be used by MDIFW biologists in managing black bears.

Think about this for a moment. For decades now, Maine has boasted as having the premier black bear management program in this here United States. Now they seek outside help? Why? Think what you will but I have my suspicions – the leader of such distrustful actions being another way of appeasing the Environmentalists and Animal Rights purveyor of perverted, and misguided scientismic nonsense to support their agendas. What other reasons are there? To publicly seek outside help is, more than likely, taken by the public as some kind of admission that they can no longer do the job.

If you will recall, MDIFW has stated for several years now that the black bear population is too large and needs to be reduced. However, talk apparently is cheap because with all the talk nothing has changed to mitigate the problem. Are there enough complaints from non-scientific animal rights groups that MDIFW feels the need to go aside the department hoping to muster more believable “data” that they hope will convince the radical Left? Is this some kind of red herring devised to bring more support from the extreme Left to the new governor’s side should she decide to trash the whole idea of better bear management replaced with Romance Biology?

Strange isn’t it that this announcement comes shortly after a new governor has been elected. As is almost always the case, the new Governor, Janet Mills (D), will appoint new commissioners to run her administration. Included in those appointments is that of the MDIFW. Reigning Commissioner Woodcock, who leaves behind a mixed bag of results, will be replaced. It appears Mills’ nomination is the current Director of the Wildlife Division, Judy Camuso.

I have read that the Maine Sportsman’s Alliance supports the Camuso nomination but I haven’t really heard any good reasons for doing so. Some on the Left oppose Camuso’s nomination because she was the mouthpiece for MDIFW during the last anti-bear hunting referendum. While many may support her because of her performance as Division of Wildlife director under Woodcook, it may be plausible that Camuso should be applauded for doing the job Woodcock/LePage wanted her to do. Does anyone really know anything about her political affiliations, her positions on hunting, fishing, trapping, Environmentalism, or Animal Rights?

Politics is politics and you can be sure that such good ole boy corruption will never be put aside to find the best available candidate for the job. Don’t get me wrong. I said I don’t know any of this stuff. What I do know is that she seemed to be a good mouthpiece for Mr. Woodcock. In reality, when you consider the governor elect’s background, why would she nominate someone that wasn’t her yes person?

Environmentalism is taking over the world and Maine is not exempt. A demanding society, the loudest of which is always on the Left, promotes a culture change void of any kind of scientific-based wildlife management programs – such programs that utilize consumptive use as a tool for population controls to promote animal health, public safety, and the opportunity for traditionalists to fill their freezers with food and enjoy the long held traditions of hunting, fishing, and trapping.

In its place, we have seen a growing trend toward demanding the rights of animals over those of people, regardless of the outcome. Instead of using real, proven science in wildlife management, the choice of today is scientism. Essentially, Scientism is the process of creating a desired result for any chosen agenda.

Scientism is most often exposed when anyone, and I mean anyone, can fabricate what appears to be a scientific study, when in fact it is a fraud conjured from the notion that most of the world knows no different and will eagerly accept this fraud as a powerful tool of (fake) scientific knowledge.

We can see that in a “study” composed by a Ph.D and three Masters of Business Administration people from the University of Southern Maine. (and what are their qualifications in creating and substantiating the claims made in the study?) This is the Bible (there is nothing else), evidently, of the radical Left animal rights groups who have spent millions of dollars in attempts to end bear hunting – just another step to the ending of all hunting, trapping, and fishing.

The Voodoo Science and Romance Biology in the Scientismic study is proven as such from merely a basic understanding of hypocrisy and contradictory statements.

Not to get sidetracked, but the point to all of this is why is the MDIFW willing to compromise their track record for their work over the years with black bears? I can only see one or two scenarios playing out here. One, if MDIFW doesn’t have the tools to do the job, maybe it’s time to ask why we have a Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Why not privatize the whole mess of departments? Have social demands gotten so big (because MDIFW decided to make management decisions based on social demands rather than science.) real science is replaced by socialistic Romance Biology?

Is the MDIFW using this act of seeking outside help as some kind of diversionary tactic so they won’t have to answer to the socialists and will have a convenient scapegoat? Or will it be used to support the socialists?

Or maybe it’s nothing more than a sign of what’s to come – the MDIFW, like so many other fish and wildlife departments across the country, has pretty much gone completely environmental, driven exclusively by social demands and global warming.

So, what will happen in Maine and specifically to the MDIFW? Who is Camuso…really? Is she a clone of the new governor? Is she merely a puppet and will do whatever to keep the governor happy? Does she support the move to privatize some of black bear management? What other wildlife species will the new governor and commissioner choose to privatize management of? I’m not sure we can honestly answer these questions. The commissioner elect said she would answer questions AFTER the nomination and election process is over. How then are we to know who the governor is nominating. All members of all parties, as well as those of us who do not identify with any party, would like a chance to voice our concerns before she is elected.

Regardless of all this – black bear modeling, new commissioner – I have little hope that much will change for the good.

Share

Please Name The Benefits

When the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife announced earlier this year that their migration to a new digital tagging system, they told in their press release that this move was going to be very beneficial to hunters. I wondered.

The other day I read another outdoor writer make the statement that this new tagging system, if done properly, would “…allow for even more opportunities that benefit recreational hunters, as well.”

Inquiring minds want to know just how this is going to benefit hunters and provide more “opportunities?”

I think I can guess that if this new system was “done properly,” in other words allowed for the growth and sustainability of all game species for ample surplus harvest, it could be a benefit. But really?

Any help would be appreciated. You can add comments below.

Share

Maine Hunting And Fishing: Not Marketed or Not Attractive?

George Smith’s article in the Bangor Daily news says, “DIF&W used to work with the outdoor industry, including guides and sporting camps, to market hunting and fishing in our state. But they don’t do that today.”

Is that the job of government, to market private business and industry? Some would think so. They might even invoke the “Commerce Clause” in the U.S. Constitution which states: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Commerce Clause says its purpose is to “regulate” not necessarily to market and promote. Of course, for those who have spent some time studying the Commerce Clause, we know how the tyrannical government has abused the clause with its mandate to “regulate” to control and manipulate private business and the people of this country in ways that require a vivid imagination to link certain laws with Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Personally, I don’t think it is the job of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to market hunting and fishing, but is that really the issue in Maine? Is the state in need of marketing hunting and fishing or is it a problem of “if you build it, they will come?” By this I mean is Maine an attractive enough place to hunt and fish that those capable and interested in traveling to other places beyond their home state to hunt and fish would find appealing enough to do so?

I would suppose that much involved in answering that question is based upon one’s perspective. It is mostly all relative to what a person might find attractive.

Also bear in mind that from what I gather talking to locals throughout the state, there’s not a lot of interest in bringing in outsiders to spread thinner the dwindling supplies of fish and game. Can we blame them? If that is understandable, are these same locals interested in their hard-earned money being used to promote private business? What’s in it for them? Maybe a few other private businesses may profit from more out-of-staters coming to hunt and fish but the majority of Maine hunters and fisherman are more interested in filling their freezers with game – a product that seems to be dwindling in Maine which might be the biggest reason these businesses, in part, are struggling to make ends meet.

Let’s take a look at a few of these fish and game species and see how attractive they are.

Maine is noted for having good trout fishing and yet the most popular fishing is for bass. Does Maine do a good job of promoting bass fishing or is it all trout fishing? 

Deer hunting is a struggling enterprise. Where once population objectives for deer were sought to be around 350,000 animals, the newest plan for deer management is calling for around 200,000 deer by the year 2020. Even though the most recent deer harvest was better than it has been in the past ten years, two things directly contributed to the increase – snow to hunt on and a record number of “Any-Deer Permits” issued (an issuance that makes little sense to many.)

Examination of data seems to indicate that as the deer harvest shrinks, along with it is the number and size of “trophy” class bucks. With a success rate below 20% and a shrinking trophy-class bucks, what’s the attraction that’s worth MDIFW spending time, personnel and money to market? (Note: Those who can afford to come to Maine “from away” to trophy hunt are the wealthy – aren’t they?)

Bear hunting attracts out-of-state hunters but an overabundance of the animals directly competes with deer and moose growth and bear are fond of fawns and calves for their meals.

MDIFW admits they need to reduce the bear population but so far have shown they have no serious intentions of doing anything about it. They whimper at the demands of guides and outfitters who want bountiful bear to keep their clientele happy. Is this the results we would get if MDIFW marketed hunting and fishing? No thanks!

Turkeys are a nuisance. All I have heard all year long is people commenting, both positively and negatively, about turkeys. There are just far too many of them and not very many people have an interest in hunting them. It is historically proven that when society begins to perceive any animal in a negative way, managers lose support for their programs. Perhaps it is time to allow the hunting of turkeys with a big game license, for both in-state and out-of-state hunters. There may be an interest in taking a few turkeys if hunters didn’t have to buy a special permit to do so. That might be a way of “marketing” hunting in the state while at the same time solve the turkey problem. But, then again, turkey hunting is prevalent and available in so many places the market is saturated. What does Maine have that other states don’t?

Which brings us to moose hunting. Year after year we hear repeatedly the disappointment of never getting drawn for a moose permit. It seems perhaps the program more resembles that of the king’s than a resource for all to enjoy. The program seems to benefit the wealthy in buying points etc. The other problem that exists with moose is one that seems to be backfiring into the faces of MDIFW from greed. The greed comes from trying to grow so many moose they can demand more money for the hunt and at the same time keep businesses trying to eke out a living through moose gawking tours. Now there is a tick and disease problem that is working to mitigate the greed. Where this will end who is certain?

With limited resources and plans for the future that appear to be calling for even fewer hunting opportunities, what’s to market? I spent many years of my earlier life in business. I never asked, nor did I want, government’s “help” with anything. As a matter of fact, I wanted them to butt out of my business knowing that any “help” they offered came in the form of more control and restrictions that directly limited my ability to prosper.

Maybe business owners, no matter who they are or what their business it, should move further away from centralized social government (what can my government do for me) and do what they can to get government out of their businesses so they can be free to change with the times. We have all been programmed to believe government is the answer. When will we learn?

Share