December 18, 2014

Maine Trappers Association Presser About Canada Lynx

Maine Trappers Association
News Release

As most all Maine trappers now know we have an Emergency Rule put in place as of 9 December 2014 to take the following actions, due to the recent taking of a second lynx.
1. The use of body grip (lethal) traps in the Lynx Zones (WMD’s 1-11, 14, 18, and 19) above ground or snow level are now no longer allowed.
2. In WMD 7, 14, 18, and 19 body grip (lethal) traps smaller than 7 ½ inches may be used on the ground – only if in a lynx exclusion device.
3. In all the above WMD’s foothold traps above the ground or snow level are no longer allowed.
• This Emergency Ruling was triggered by a contingency provision in IF&W’s Incidental Take Plan developed to obtain a permit under the Endangered Species Act from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the unintended take of Canadian Lynx. Under the conditions set forth in the Incidental Take Plan, if two lynx are killed by legally set traps, trapping rules will be modified to prevent another lynx being killed.
• This Emergency Ruling action was taken by IF&W after their notification of and consulting with the Maine Trappers Executive Officers on the incident. The MTA officers were in total agreement with this emergency action. Any other recommendation or action taken by the parties would have resulted in the U.S. F&WS taking some form of action.
*It should be noted that a 3rd lynx taken in “any part of the state” (no matter what WMD) will have the same results.

• IF&W and the MTA board are diligently working together to a resolution to this issue, with the end results hopefully benefiting Maine trappers being able to continue to trap in the future in the affected areas for marten and fisher in some fashion that will prevent the taking of the final 3rd lynx. Meetings have been and are being held by both parties to work towards a resolution.
• A meeting of MTA officers, directors, and any members who want to attend to talk about Lynx and what actions we need to take to help resolve this is planned to be held either the 4th or 11th of January 2015 in Bangor at the Bangor Motor Lodge. IF&W will attend this meeting so that we can all work to a resolution. The actual date and time will be determined and disseminated to MTA members as soon as possible.

Demanding Regulation and Enforcement

LoggingIt’s easy isn’t it? This American society has become so manipulated and brainwashed that we, without any thought, demand that “there ought to be a law,” also known as regulation and enforcement. It shouldn’t be so easy and isn’t when the demands for regulation and enforcement hit directly home. Odd how selfish people are when it comes to playing with other peoples’ liberties, property and rights while attempting to protect their own. Because we’ve been bred and molded into non thinkers, we fail miserably in finding understanding as to the consequences of demanding regulation and enforcement. We somehow believe demanding of others’ livelihoods is good for ourselves. Have we that right?

Here’s an example. In a recent editorial in a Maine newspaper Online, a writer says that logging is “damaging Maine’s natural resources.” At issue seemed to be the writer’s concern over the state’s deer herd and the threats from loss of wintering habitat for deer because of logging. The writer states: “If the State of Maine is serious enough and has the guts to regulate and enforce effective laws to preserve our natural resources, not ask for volunteers, we can do that.”

Yes, we can do that but what is the right thing to do? The writer suggests that all it takes is “guts” to tell a landowner they can’t have what is rightfully theirs. But people somehow don’t believe it is rightfully theirs. They think they have a right to tell you how to live and how to make your living.

If you were a rancher or farmer, is all it would take would be “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you out of ownership of a barn because perhaps the smell of manure bothered some people? After all, it just takes guts. If you owned a home with a back yard swimming pool, would it be acceptable to “regulate and enforce,” with “guts” no less, for you to be prohibited from having a pool because someone thought it dangerous? What if you had a large tree in your yard that you were afraid would fall and damage your home. All it would take is guts to “regulate and enforce” you into not being able to cut that tree because it might have “historic” value….or something. And so, you have a title to 50 acres of land where your home is built. The government determines that 40 acres of that land is habitat for a rare plant and so, you are prohibited to use or sell that land in order to protect that plant. All it takes is “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you from what is rightfully yours.

Doesn’t this actually define an illegal “takings?” How do we, as a people, a government, have the right to take property from somebody without just compensation? With “guts” we can simply “regulate and enforce” landowners to stop harvesting timber that MIGHT be detrimental to the proliferation of a large enough deer herd so that residents can hunt them.

Isn’t to have the “guts” to “regulate and enforce” nothing more than fascism? If not fascism, certainly totalitarianism. We now live in a totalitarian/socialist state. If we can’t get away with “regulate and enforce” or illegal takings, then, if Maine is so determined that the reduced deer herd, the effect of which is part of a struggling economy, is so important, then landowners should be justly compensated for a “taking.” As such, all residents will endure an increase in taxes to pay for the takings…each according to his ability, each according to his need…and we must also consider the ramifications of price increases due to shortages of resources – supply and demand.

In reality, the landowner isn’t the landowner at all. He holds a piece of paper that allows him to pay taxes on it and to do with that land ONLY what government dictates him to be able to do. We continue to convince ourselves that we own land and can do with it what we want. The short of it is, it doesn’t take “guts” at all. It only takes government to demand and take. Citizens don’t understand that when they demand “there ought to be a law,” they are doing the bidding for the government against the people.

While citizens are making their demands to “regulate and enforce” their own ignorance and selfish greed prohibits them from a deeper understanding of the consequences of such demands. It will be only a matter of time before that demand to “regulate and enforce” comes around and bites them squarely on the backside.

I began this article stating how easy it was to demand laws. Those laws on demand are for somebody else not you, is our attitude. That is our mindset and that is why it is easy. Instead of thinking of what those consequences will be WHEN your turn comes around to be regulated and enforced upon, it’s easier to demand if of other people. And, more than likely, your demands are based upon false information you have been spoon fed that causes you to think “there ought to be a law.”

There ought to be a law that prohibits people from demanding “regulate and enforce.” Ha Ha

Deer Swims 12 Miles in Gulf of Maine to Tiny Island?

“Diamond said he has no idea how a deer would swim that far and make it on the island.

“It is either an extremely Olympic-class swimming deer or somebody’s idea of a practical joke,” he said.

“It is just surprising to me that it didn’t stay on the island longer, just to take a rest and get some food,” he said.”<<<Read More>>>

Maine IFW, Partners Crafting Wildlife Action Plan

Press Release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine — Did you know that Maine has a plan for conserving its most rare and vulnerable fish and wildlife species? Maine’s Wildlife Action Plan, created in 2005, focuses on voluntary measures that can assist many of Maine’s most vulnerable species, it highlights natural area conservation efforts, and sets the course for the future of wildlife conservation in Maine.

Since 2005, Maine has received close to $8 million in federal funding and accomplished over 50 research, management, and conservation projects, benefitting brook trout, rare freshwater mussels and dragonflies, migrant birds such as Bicknell’s Thrush and Black-throated blue Warbler, and globally rare species, such as the Tomah mayfly. Puffins, wood turtles, Atlantic sturgeon, little brown bats and bumble bees are also recognizable species that have benefitted from the Wildlife Action Plan.

Maine is home to 292 species of birds, 61 species of non-marine mammals, 20 species of reptiles, 18 species of amphibians, 56 species of inland fish and 313 species of marine fish and mammals. The state is a geographic transition area, and its abundant wildlife resources represent a blending of species that are at or approaching the northern or southern limit of their ranges. Maine’s diverse physical settings support a wide diversity of wildlife that few other states can equal.

Wildlife Action Plans are created collaboratively among state, federal, tribal, and local agencies, non-profit organizations, private landowners, and the general public to identify opportunities to conserve vulnerable species and habitats before they become more difficult to address. (http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/reports/wap.html). In 2005, Maine’s plan identified 213 of our species in greatest need of conservation, the key issues surrounding these fish, wildlife, and their habitats; and showcased conservation opportunities necessary to prevent a species from becoming endangered, or to implement recovery programs.

Wildlife Action Plans must be updated every ten years; Maine’s next revised plan is due October 1, 2015. Over the coming year, MDIFW and its partners will work together to identify Maine’s fish and wildlife needs and conservation opportunities for the next decade.

Over 70 public, private, and non-profit entities are helping revise Maine’s Action Plan. Close to 50 of these organizations have attended workshop meetings in July, September and November, ensuring that Maine’s 2015 Wildlife Action Plan will reflect the values and priorities of Maine’s people. Landowner participation is also an essential part of the process, in order to identify practical, voluntary conservation opportunities that are amenable to landowner objectives and land use practices. Considering that wildlife-related recreation contributes over $1.4 billion annually to Maine’s economy, crafting an effective Wildlife Action Plan benefits not only our resident fish and wildlife species, but also supports a thriving sector of our state’s economy.

For more information, to make comments, or to become involved in Maine’s 2015 Wildlife Action Plan revision, please visit http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/reports/MWAP2015.html or contact us at mainewildlifeactionplan@gmail.com.

Maine Judge Says HSUS Can’t Restrict Free Speech

““Restricting speech on contested public issues is directly contrary to the public interest, which favors a robust and dynamic public discourse,” Wheeler said in her 15-page decision. “It is [for] the voters, not the plaintiffs or the courts, to assess the relative merits of conflicting speech.

“The public interest would be adversely affected if plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order were granted when DIF&W’s speech is on topics squarely within ‘its competence as governor’” of statutory directives from the Legislature.”<<<Read More>>>

HSUSliars

Televised Maine Bear Debate: Camuso and Cote vs. Pacelle and Gray

Washington County Board Of Commissioners Officially Opposes Question 1

Source: Save Maine’s Bear Hunt

Posted on October 13, 2014

Proclamation

Opposition to Maine Referendum Question #1

“Do you want to ban the use of bait, dogs or traps in bear hunting except to protect property, public safety, or for research?

WHEREAS, Maine has one of the highest black bear populations at over 30,000, without effective hunting methods, the population will continue to dramatically increase; and,

WHEREAS, hunters spend an average of 15 days harvesting their quarry, and only one in four hunters are successful in their endeavors; and,

WHEREAS, monies spend during the hunting season directly and indirectly impact both the local and statewide economies, providing jobs and business opportunities for many rural residents; and,

WHEREAS, the Washington County Board of Commissioners agree that Referendum Question #1 would cripple Maine’s ability to manage its bear population as evidenced by statistical data showing that the use of bait, hounds, and traps are the most effective hunting methods that best control the population. The Board of Commissioners believes that the passage of Referendum Question #1 would compromise the safety of citizens with a potential increase of human-bear interactions; and,

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners strongly support the Maine Wildlife Conservation Council, Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologists, and Maine Game Wardens IN THEIR EFFORTS TO DEFEAT QUESTION #1; and,

WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners views Referendum Question #1 as just the beginning of a more expansive effort to erode Maine’s rich hunting traditions;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Washington County Board of Commissioners, at its October 8, 2014 Regular Meeting, officially opposes Maine Referendum Question #1 that will ban the use of bait, dogs, or traps in bear hunting.

Christopher Gardner, Chairman
John Crowley, Sr. Commissioner
Vinton Cassidy, Commissioner

Don’t let personal choices about bear hunting get in the way of sound judgment

“Here in Maine, wildlife management through science and broad-based public participation is not just a goal; it’s part of the social contract. However, approval of Ballot Question 1 — which would outlaw traditional methods of bear hunting and take away the best tools we have for bear management — would be a wholesale breach of our social contract.”<<<Read More>>>

Missed Bear Debate? Available Now Online

If you were unable to catch the live stream of the bear referendum debate hosted by WGME-TV and Bangor Daily News, all six parts are available for viewing on the WGME website.

Maine’s George Smith Under Scrutiny Over His Rant About Gov. LePage and Claims Made About Political Intentions

For me, it began sort of innocently enough when George Smith, writer, blogger, activist, and former executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), published a not very nice blog in his Bangor Daily News safe haven. Smith stated that sportsmen in Maine should not support or vote for incumbent Governor Paul LePage mostly because he says LePage failed in his promises to sportsmen in the last election.

Nothing that Smith wrote took me by surprise. Smith typically writes about himself, reliving his days at SAM and wishing to perpetuate the thoughts that these were his glory days. Many have not been able to understand why, after having been absent from his job at SAM for several years, he continues to present himself as a mouth piece for the organization. However, Smith has made no bones about the fact that he dislikes LePage and perhaps it is only coincidental that it appears his dislike for the Governor grew when his sister was fired from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). Smith has in subsequent writings denied that any love lost with the governor has anything to do with that incident.

Therefore, Smith’s rant in the Bangor Daily News really should not have come as any big surprise. Personally, I thought the article was a lot of whining and what credibility Smith might have had with Maine sportsmen in his perspectives and positions on Gov. Paul LePage, were caught up in the swirl as the toilet bowl emptied into the septic tank.

But one thing that caught my eye appeared in the comments section when a reader wrote:

George, You should probably disclose that you and your sister are advising LePage’s opponents in this race. This is pretty dishonest.

I have not been able to confirm whether this statement was true and have decided up to this point to remain quiet on this issue because, one, I don’t really care what George Smith thinks about Paul LePage, and two, until I can find confirmation that Smith is working, for pay, for Eliot Cutler and/or Mike Michaud, then I would continue to remain silent. If this is true, not only is Smith wrong to not reveal this but the Bangor Daily News is culpable as well.

To the criticisms Smith received from his first rant, he rebuts many of the claims on his own website and does very little to smooth the water or add back any sort of credibility. I wonder if anyone has ever told Smith that readers, generally, don’t find much interest in reading a person so full of himself?

Today, the Maine Wire provides evidence, from emails, that Smith is working as an adviser to Mike Michaud and Eliot Cutler.

In the July email exchange provided by SAM, Smith attempted to procure LePage’s SAM survey for use in a blog post. The survey would have provided Smith with LePage’s positions on various sportsman’s issues.

Cherly[SIC] C. Timberlake, the chair of SAM’s board of directors, declined to provide Smith with the information and raised questions about his work on behalf of candidates for statewide offices.

“I am helping both Michaud and Cutler and have made no secret of it,” Smith wrote in response.

In Smith’s I-am-the-greatest-of-all-time rebuttal, he states that he is not getting paid to advise either Michaud or Cutler:

I have given free advice (not paid as some charged) to Mike Michaud and Eliot Cutler and any other politician who asked…

If Smith is “advising” without pay, it lessens the degree of dishonesty in not disclosing his agenda, but it still appears dishonest and heaps troubles on a man who may be suffering from the lack of credibility, at least credibility when it comes to Paul LePage issues.

Some have asked why SAM allows, if that would be the correct terminology, Smith to continue falling back on and presenting himself as a representative of SAM. To that question I have no idea the answer. There is no need to make enemies between Smith and SAM but when certain claims by Smith go unanswered by SAM, people begin to assume that SAM must agree. It would best handled, in my opinion, if Smith would move beyond his SAM “glory days” and let the present personality of SAM do its thing.

I’m not sure that we have heard the end of this issue. However, now that a few Maine sportsmen have woken up, Gov. LePage would benefit by stepping up to the batters box and taking a swing. He’s gotten a sign, now he should swing away and see if he can drive in some runs for the Maine sportsmen. If not, perhaps Michaud and Cutler will do his pinch hitting.