March 23, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


History Archive of MDIFW Available Online

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


Northwoods Sporting Journal Free Online

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Oh, it’s not to save the chickadee!!


Time To Apply For Your Dwindling Chances at a Moose Permit

From the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

MDIFW NEWS – – Apply Online Now For The 2018 Maine Moose Permit Lottery

AUGUSTA, Maine – The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is now accepting applications online for the 2018 Maine moose permit lottery. Applications for the 2018 Maine moose permit lottery will be accepted online only. The online application process is fast and simple and you receive instant confirmation that you have successfully entered the lottery.

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

If an applicant does not have access to a computer or the Internet at home, the Department has the following suggestions for applying online:

• Use a computer at work during lunch or a break • Use a computer at your local library • Ask a friend or relative with a computer for help in applying

The deadline to apply for the lottery is 11:59 p.m. on May 15, 2018.

Applicants are awarded bonus points for each consecutive year that they have applied for the lottery since 1998 without being selected and each bonus point gives the applicant an additional chance in the drawing.

Bonus points are earned at the rate of one per year for years one to five, two per year for years six to 10, three per year for years 11 to 15 and 10 per year for years 16 and beyond.

Since 2011, applicants can skip a year and not lose their bonus points. So if they applied in 2016 but not in 2017, they still have their points available if they apply in 2018.

Want to be there for the drawing? The 2018 moose lottery permit drawing will take place during the Skowhegan Moose Festival. The festival runs June 8-10, 2018 at the Skowhegan Fairgrounds and the drawing will take place on the afternoon of June 9. For more information, please visit For more information about moose hunting in Maine and the moose permit lottery, please visit:


Our outdoor heritage faces an uncertain future

When it comes to Maine’s fabled outdoor heritage, you don’t have to be a social scientist or a statistician to sense what is going on. Changing times are leaving a mark on our culture in countless ways. If you visit a few rod and gun clubs around the state, a common theme shows itself: a predominance of wrinkled gray-haired members and a glaring absence of bright-eyed, fresh-scrubbed youth among the club rolls.

Equally apparent, if you are an older sportsman yourself, who still spends time in the deer woods or on the fishing waters of this state, is that there seems to be a significant absence of active sportsmen like yourself.<<<Read More>>>



Maine’s Constitutional Amendment to Hunt and Fish Given a Thumbs Down

According to George Smith’s article in the Bangor Daily News, the Maine Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife turned their noses up at a proposed constitutional amendment sold as something that would guarantee Maine residents a right to hunt and fish. The biggest reasons, as expressed in the article, is that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), who said they were neither for nor against the amendment while showing their disdain for it, might hinder their ability to carry out their management practices. One might ask if that was necessarily a bad thing. The other issue seemed to be that some lawmakers were afraid that if the initiative went to the voters and was rejected it would cast a negative image on MDIFW and sportsmen.

No really! That’s what is written. Check this out. “Rep. Bob Duchesne, the House chair of the IFW Committee, stated that the majority of the committee agrees that we do have the right to hunt and fish. But he also expressed… that voters might reject the amendment which would have a seriously negative impact.”

Here is an organization that seems to go out of its way to keep important information from sportsmen, pissing a lot of us off, and they are worried about whether allowing the people of Maine to make a decision on a constitutional amendment might have negative effects? Whatever! Buy the emperor some new clothes!

It doesn’t really matter. It’s probably a good thing this proposal is dead in the water. One has to ask whether it would have been worth the time, effort and expense to push this amendment when you consider the amendment didn’t go far enough to guarantee anything. Like just about all legislation, it would be worthless and crafted in such a way that lawyers would have a field day with it.

And besides, isn’t this proposed amendment coming about a decade or two too late? Somebody has been sleeping.

The entire effort reminds me of the Biblical parable of the ten virgins. Ten virgins were told to go and wait for the bridegroom to return. Five took lamps with oil in them and five took lamps with no oil. When the bridegroom returned, five virgins lit their lamps and followed him while the other five were lost and left behind. I’ll let you figure out who had the oil.

I suggested a constitutional amendment for Maine at least ten years ago. As a matter of fact, I also posed such a question to Maine’s gubernatorial candidates in 2006. Two of the three candidates supported an amendment or would support it if the people desired one. But, there was no mention of negative embarrassments if such a proposal failed before the voters. Where are we headed anyway? Perhaps back then, if lamps had been trimmed and ready for action, an amendment might have been more easily accepted.

As time wears on, the activity of hunting, trapping, and fishing is falling by the wayside being overtaken by the movements of Environmentalists. Environmentalism, a disease that has deliberately been spread throughout the nation to upend the time-proven heritage and science of wildlife management according to the North American Model of Wildlife Management, and replaced with non-consumptive, Romance Scientism, has infiltrated every aspect at every level of wildlife management. Because of this, there are few left who see what is happening and the reception of such things as constitutional amendments to guarantee the right to hunt, trap, and fish is, in and of itself, negative.

This infiltration is seen within the proposed amendment itself – a proposal that guarantees no more than the propaganda that MDIFW lists on their website as a mission statement.

From this point on, any effort to even suggest a constitutional amendment would be nothing more than a waste of time. Chaulk another up for the animal rights/environmentalists. They are winning the battle one small step at a time while the rest of us dither.

The day rapidly approaches when someone might ask, “Didn’t there used to be hunting in Maine?”



Maine Big Bucks and Estimated 2017 Deer Harvest

As has been the case over the past several years, we wait until nobody cares anymore about the last hunting season’s deer harvest data. In the meantime, my team waits for the Big Bucks Report that is put out by the Maine Sportsman magazine, then goes to work counting and plotting graphs. From the number of registered “big bucks,” an estimate is generated as to what the final count will be for that year’s deer harvest. While not accurate, the estimations haven’t been very far off, proof of our excellent work.

Below are two charts. The first, which probably looks familiar to those regular readers here, is the ongoing chart that shows the deer harvest year, the total harvest and an array of numbers, percentages, and departures from a base year. As is always done when I publish this chart, the last, or in this case 2017 “Deer Kill” is an estimation based on previous years’ calculations. When the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) decides to release the deer harvest data (typically we will not see this until early summer), I will update this chart with the official “Deer Kill” and republish that for readers.

The second chart/graph shows the number of registered Big Bucks with the Maine Sportsman magazine since the year 2000. To be honest, I’m not sure what, if any, real conclusions can be made from this information because there are certain variables that change that may affect the results. For example, what determines how many people decide to register their “Big Bucks” with the Maine Sportsman? I doubt those numbers vary a lot from year to year, but over several years as the demographics of the hunting community changes from year to year, so too it may change the results of the number of big bucks registered.

I was a bit dismayed after having read an editorial in the Maine Sportsman where the editors presented a bright and optimistic overview of Maine’s deer population, the percentage of big bucks, and the future outlook for deer hunting and deer management. The magazine provided their own creative graph of big bucks, but only for the past six years – certainly not long enough where any honest estimations, conclusions, or trends could be generated.

As you will see, our charts go back to the year 2000. Eighteen years of Maine Sportsman Magazine’s registered Big Bucks are plotted. When comparing eighteen years against 6 years, a deer hunter might not be so thrilled about the trend that appears before them.

Reminding readers that this information and chart is not necessarily a scientific one, I have generally concluded that the number of big bucks basically follows the trend in the overall deer population. If this is accurate, this could be taken as a compliment to the MDIFW having been able to accomplish a healthy maintenance of buck to doe ratios and age structure. This is a good thing.

However, to state that “more hunters took trophy deer each successive year since 2014” may be accurate but perhaps a bit misleading.

An examination of the eighteen-year graph shows that the Maine deer population shrank and remains that way. The deer harvest has plummeted from a high of 38,153 in 2002, to a low of 18,045 in 2009. Since 2009, the deer harvest has averaged around 21,000 – nothing to get too excited about.

Reports have been thrown around about mild winters and more deer, but to those who get around, it is clear that such conditions only exist in certain areas.

While only looking at the last two years, the number of reported Big Bucks is nearly identical, hinting that the deer population throughout the entire state has remained static.

I do not look for any changes in deer management. All that might change as far as deer herd and harvest will be the result of variables in which we have no control over. As long as there remains too many moose, too many black bears, too many coyote/wolf hybrids, too many bobcats, and too many Canada lynx, the struggle to grow a deer herd will persist. Maine hunters should get used to how things are now, while expecting up and down swings of hunting success.