March 20, 2018

Protecting the Fish and Game Biologist Brotherhood

Once again, Outcome Based Education, political bias and perpetuated myths are on display in Maine. A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist and a Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologist, says that politicians are the cause of Maine’s depleted(ing) deer herd, not coyotes.

Politicians are to blame for many things and readers know I would be the last in line to stand up for one unless I knew them personally and could trust them. As far as whether politicians are the sole blame for Maine’s vanishing deer herd, I don’t think, as much as I would like to, I could put all the blame on them.

The author was a wildlife biologist and worked for the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), so I doubt he would dare place any of the blame for a terrible deer management execution on his “brotherhood” at MDIFW.

Getting beyond the political bias and nonsense, let’s examine a few things that the retired biologist had to say.

Since the early 1900s, expensive and barbaric coyote bounties have failed miserably in western states, but that knowledge carries no weight in Augusta.

History is full of accounts of how “barbaric bounties” very effectively controlled predator populations. Maybe the author needed to rewind his history clock a few more years to discover that….or maybe the seeming failure was intentional.

One has to simply reread many of the journals and accounts from years ago in the West to learn what actually happened. A favorite account of mine is that of C. Gordon Hewitt.

It always amazes me how that the evils of hunting swing in both directions, when convenient. While wolves and coyotes were virtually wiped out in the West as the settlers moved in, hunters were blamed. When there is talk of killing predators, such as coyotes and wolves, those same people who blamed the destruction of coyotes and wolves on hunters, swing the door in the other direction and tell us as did the opinion piece in question:

It seems counterintuitive, but the war on coyotes has actually increased their numbers and breeding range. The Colorado Division of Wildlife reports that coyotes are more numerous today than when the state was first settled by trappers. Colorado and other western states no longer waste taxpayer money on futile coyote control programs.

There exists no scientific evidence that killing coyotes causes them to automatically breed more of themselves. There are just too many factors that come into play when examining reproductive habits of any wild animal. And is the author of this opinion piece actually suggesting here that all those coyotes now in Colorado are solely to blame on hunters and trappers? Once again, a reading and studying of the history of settling the West shows that aside from certain pockets, this nirvana of the West was not so Disneyesque as many would like to believe. Man’s expansion created a vast habitat to support coyotes and all other wildlife. In time, the implementation of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation allowed for the growth and health of our wildlife systems.

The retired biologist intimates that Maine plans to implement a one year program to kill coyotes, saying it wouldn’t be effective. Agreed, and I know of no honest person who has indicated that it would. I happen to know explicitly that both MDIFW Commissioner Woodcock and Governor LePage have been told and I believe understand that predator control is an ongoing part of wildlife management and this should have been taking place years ago. The MDIFW fell flat on their faces in this regard.

The article shows us the author’s real colors when he begins his rant about how the Maine politicians failed because they did not steal land rights away from American taxpayers. The crying and gnashing of teeth is about the State Legislature failing to tell landowners they can’t use the resources on their own land; an unconstitutional land grab straight from the pages of the United Nations Agenda 21 program, whose goal it is to take all land and resources worldwide and forbid you and I from owning or having access to any of it, saving it instead for them. I’m all for protecting our wildlife, but never at the expense of man’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There are better ways than forceful takeovers.

We are then treated to what appears to be an expert on the deer management in Minnesota and Michigan stating:

If you remain unconvinced that lack of winter shelter is the primary reason northern Maine supports few deer, please consider this: Minnesota and Michigan deer herds are much healthier than Maine’s. Minnesota and Michigan winters are as difficult as Maine’s. Deer in both of those states must also avoid being eaten by coyotes and wolves.

So the logical question LePage, Woodcock, Martin and deer hunters should ask is this: What are Minnesota and Michigan doing differently to maintain healthy deer populations? The answer: Both states prioritize protecting deer wintering areas through land purchases, conservation easements and regulating excessive timber harvests.

The proof is in the pudding they say, and with the help of a reader, we have been able to provide a couple of graphs that show that since the late 1990s and early 2000s, both Minnesota and Michigan have seriously reduced deer harvest numbers, dropping over 30% and more.

You don’t suppose that one of the reasons that Minnesota and Michigan have a declining harvest of deer, an indication of a declining deer population, has anything at all to do with the years of over protecting predators and now the results of that over protection are showing up? In addition, I have yet to get anyone that pretends to have all the answers explain to me why, if there are no more deer wintering areas left in Maine to support more deer, the ones we have are not being used?

It appears that the basis for the author’s opinion piece in the paper is mostly wrapped around his dislike of Gov. LePage and his republican administration, while at the same time blaming politicians in general for a deer demise, the fate of which was left in the hands of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a department that the biologist was an employee of. Surely we couldn’t expect someone to point a finger at their brotherhood of hoodwinked biologists….or even perhaps at themselves.


Costa Rica Bans Hunting

*Editor’s Note* – Most of the links provided for information into the background of Costa Rica’s president, Laura Chinchilla, comes from Wikipedia. Please consider this source while reading and researching the information provided.

Costa Rica, located in Central America, has become the first country in the Americas to ban hunting. According to one news report, “President Laura Chinchilla, who supports the measure, is expected to sign it into law in the next days.” But nobody is asking the real question as to why this is happening. Let’s take a look.

Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla was elected in 2010. She is a member of the National Liberation Party and her party holds a very clear majority in the Costa Rican Legislature, of at least a 2 to 1 margin. The National Liberation Party is a member of Socialist International.

Laura Chinchilla graduated from the University of Costa Rica and then went on to receive her master’s degree in public policy from Jesuit-run Georgetown University. She has opposed any efforts to change the country’s labeling of being a Roman Catholic nation; in other words she opposes any kind of separation of church and state.

Socialist International is a group of over 100 countries striving toward what they call, “democratic socialism”. Currently the president of Socialist International, hails from Greece, if that tells you anything.

Of utmost importance to Chinchilla are, “[e]nvironmental protection and sustainability”; those famous and recognizable words from the Vatican-controlled United Nations and Agenda 21. She advocates for the brainwashing of Costa Rican children in promoting “Odyssey 2050“, an animated film that, “motivates and educates young people from around the world into taking action on climate change.”

The linked-to news account of this ban on hunting, comes from France24, a news agency out of France, whose stated mission is to, “cover international current events from a French perspective and to convey French values throughout the world.” So, we know that the report is biased and written in such a way as to promote socialism; a “value” of France. France is currently a member of Socialist International.

However, the news report states that the idea of banning recreational hunting in Costa Rica is a “popular measure”, it is obvious that it is popular in Chinchilla’s National Liberation Party, which, even though in the last election won enough votes, it fell short of 50% of the vote. We really don’t know how the people feel about banning hunting – only the National Liberation Party.

It should not be forgotten that that is one of the outcomes of socialism. As socialism grows, even the faux title of democratic socialism, the people have no say in how their government is run. It is run by the rulers of the government, in this case the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. the Vatican.

If you do your research and studying on how the Vatican controls aspects of the United Nations, you will see that they actively promote Agenda 21, along with programs that promote that the state governments, or more accurately a one world government, will own all the land and will dictate to the people what they can and can’t do and how, if at all, resources will be used. Most of the United Nations programs support preservation, which can easily be defined as anti-hunting/anti-consumption and anti-ownership.

So, now you know why Costa Rica banned hunting. How far are you willing to allow your government to go before hunting is banned in this country? I know. It will never happen here, right?


Obama: Grabbing Guns and Other Property Without Due Process

The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to “seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses.” That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.<<<Read More>>>


Ray Stevens: Livin’ the Obama Budget Plan


Where Once A Man’s Word Had Honor, Now Lies Have Become Truth

The dictionary defines a progressive as being someone who “favors progress or reform, especially in political matters”. Progress and reform are both gray issues; meaning there is no specific description of what each means. That in and of itself presents an array of troublesome quandaries that have led this fine nation into a spiraling abyss of immorality, or at least can be perceived by anyone maintaining some semblance of an honest and ethical lifestyle. One such example of “favors progress or reform”, in order to achieve a desired result, is lying. Where once a man’s word retained a wealth of value and was as good as good can get, now lying is not only prevalent but eagerly accepted among the masses of progressive, secular Americans. But why?

One of the things I managed to accomplish this summer while at my camp in the woods of Maine was to read. One particular book I read – one that I bought for .50 cents at the library book sale – was another in a growing collection of books I have about Abraham Lincoln, but in particular the conspiracy to assassinate him. The book is: “The True History of the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln and of the Conspiracy of 1865”. The content of the book is essentially the account as told by Louis J. Weichmann.

Weichmann was a friend of John H. Surratt and the Surratt family, including Mary Surratt. He also met and had relationships of varying degrees with many of the so-called conspirators, including John Wilkes Booth, in the killing of Abraham Lincoln and the attempted assassination of others. Because of this association, Weichmann was initially held by authorities as a possible conspirator but eventually much of his testimony was used to convict members of this group.

The book details the testimony and trial of the conspirators (all were charged and tried together). A few years after the initial trial, John H. Surratt was captured and tried and Weichmann details this as well.

Aside from the complicated mess of evidence, real and fabricated, it doesn’t take long to realize that the words and written testimony of those involved in the trial, are held in high esteem by both the author and the courts. Seldom was a person’s word brought into question unless it could be accurately proven to be a falsehood. Time was not wasted attempting to blur the evidence or present a person’s testimony as something it wasn’t in order to have influence over the jury. Words were either fact or fiction and if fiction you better have real proof. If it was proven a man lied, nothing that specific individual had to say or offer in the case had any value and was completely disregarded. Otherwise, a man’s word was seldom questioned as society still viewed a person’s word as something to honor and respect.

Can the same be said for today? We witness courtroom testimony and the words of witnesses, judges, lawyers, etc. and much of what they say, if not an outright lie, is misleading and meant to be so. Each side strives for a desired outcome and subjective morals and subjective truths are used in order to get there.

This is not relegated to just the courtrooms however. Take our media for example. Where once it was mostly taken as a “journalist’s” moral responsibility and obligation to tell only the facts as can be substantiated, now it’s more about ratings and who can be the first to tell a story about an event regardless of the accuracy of the content.

We Americans find ourselves once again mired in another presidential campaign, along with elections of certain member seats in the House and Senate. Honest and unbiased reasoning shows us there is little justification to trust a politician’s word about anything and yet as sure as flies are attracted to garbage, voters are drawn to the words, not perhaps because of the truths they may hold but for the want of what those recitations promise. We care not if anything uttered is truth, just that what they say images our desired subjective truths and morals. We are so fickle!

It is readily discussed these days, and surely who can argue, that what once was news is now entertainment. One coined word for this is “infotainment”. While it may be entertainment, and some members of this “news” entertainment might willingly agree to its description, it certainly is not presented to the masses of people as entertainment. Shouldn’t it be? Or has everything that involves truth and morality become subjective? Of course it has. American people take comedy and entertainment shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or Colbert Nation with Stephen Colbert as legitimate news shows. We are so volatile!

At essentially every level of American society, progressiveness, i.e. the “development of an individual or society in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level”, exists to some degree. We are all guilty. But what happens when one’s desires and idealism become the driving force in their life? To what lengths will they go and what conservative values are they willing to abandon in order to achieve that thought of as a, “superior level”?

None of this is new. This idea that morals and truth is subjective, meaning that one’s mind and thoughts can rightly justify the devaluing of objective truth, has been around in the minds of men for many centuries. Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher who died at age 42 and lived from 1813 – 1855, said: “…the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.” He also was quoted as saying: “When he is nearest to being in two places at the same time he is in passion; but passion is momentary, and passion is also the highest expression of subjectivity.”

Because someone is passionate about what they might believe, say and do, this can justify subjective truth and the lack of adherence to a moral compass? Wasn’t it James Madison who said that the only way our founding Constitution and Bill of Rights would ever survive was if the nation maintained a moral backbone. It has not. As a matter of fact, the so-called progressives have managed to convince our American youth that the worship of God Almighty played no role in the construction of our constitution and thus the end result is a promotion of subjective morals and truth, leaving a nation lacking in leadership to seek Kierkegaard’s truth – that which is true to me.

When considering this kind of thought and the results of those thoughts, also acknowledge how this enters into the many debates that exist in this country that are “passionate” and often, if not always, embroiled in one’s subjective truth. In the work that I do, this is prevalent in the debates about wildlife management and the environment. Just pick a subject.

The Bible says in John 14:6, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father except through Me.” For those who still adhere to objective truth and morals, God told us in his Word, that He alone was the Truth. Man’s words therefore can only be held to account of the Word of God in seeking truth. When’s the last time that happened in this country?

For the secular minded, be it told that Nazi Germany based its “truth” to justify the murdering of innocent humans on Darwin’s principle of “survival of the fittest”, therefore discovering their Kierkegaard kind of truth in killing those they believed to be inferior human beings. They also relied on Friedrich Nietzsche’s belief that: “Since there is no God to will what is good, we must will our own good. And since there is no eternal value, we must will the eternal recurrence of the same state of affairs.”

Not that the United States has now become Nazi Germany but provided that this nation, including each of us as accountable individuals, as well as our governments, powerful media sources, non governmental agencies, etc., continues down this road of dissing the Truth of God’s word and seeking their own truth to fit their agendas and ideals, we can only expect to witness a more blatant and intended bunch of lies in order to accomplish our goals.

God’s word is Truth. Every moral compass of the world should point to the Truth. When it does not, the lies become commonplace and those creating and perpetuating those lies will have succeeded in convincing themselves that “their truth” is what works for them and therefore all others become the lies.


Was Justice Roberts Threatened With His Life and Voted For the Mandate?

Been outside working to finish up some things around the campsite before the weekend. It’s been a few hours now since I heard of the Supreme Court’s decision to urinate on what’s left of the Constitution, while Elana Kagan, Obama’s Marxist/Socialist attorney general, who created the arguments for Obamacare and voted on her own case and here’s what I’ve decided to write in comment of that decision.

Obviously somebody got to Justice Roberts. He appears as an idiot who has sold out to justice and the U.S. Supreme Court. However, somebody got to him and probably threatened him with his life or someone in his family. That’s how Obama and his band of thugs operate.

It’s a sad, a very sad damned day in Amerika today! What hope that some had that we might be able to turn Obama on his ear and rid him of his Marxist ways, was flushed down the toilet by an idiot and chicken shit for a Supreme Court Justice.

Beginning today, I am considering ceasing all work and getting in the Welfare lines. I certainly can make more money and won’t have to do a goddamn thing to get it. It’s time you communist bastards took care of me for a change!

America is gone! Gone for good! And the U.S. Supreme Court just turned off the water, locked the door and said goodbye.


While All Eyes Are on Eric Holder’s Role in “Fast and Furious”, Hillary Clinton Was the Mastermind

Watch the hand! Keep your eye on the hand! That is the hand of Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, as he lies and attempts to maneuver himself out of trouble. Add to this the fact that all members of the press are concentrating on Eric Holder as being guilty of such things as contempt of court (why not murder or at least man slaughter?), others digging even deeper into this disgusting, illegal and convoluted Marxist-style of law enforcement, have discovered that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was one of the masterminds behind Fast and Furious.

Don’t hold your breath or get your hopes high that any of these criminal thugs will be held accountable for their actions. This is just business as usual during an election cycle.

In the meantime, you should be paying very close attention as to what is going on that the U.S. Government DOESN’T want you to know about while using Fast and Furious as a smoke screen.


Roxanne Quimby’s “Plan B” Calls For Obama to Declare “National Monument” for Maine

In a disturbing article in Outside online, and yet nothing surprising when it comes to President Obama and Roxanne Quimby, it appears Quimby is holding a bit of an ace up her sleeve in order to get her land and much of the Northern forests of Maine protected by the Federal Government. Her plan is to ask President Obama, through Executive Order, to declare Northern Maine a “National Monument”, as has been done by other outgoing presidents.

Should Obama lose reelection, Quimby will ask Obama to do this.


Contrary to MSM, Ron Paul Is Still in Presidential Race

Last December, Montana Shooting Sports Association endorsed congressman Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President, and for good reason.

Let me address two more points:

1) The major media wants you to think that Ron Paul has dropped out of the race. NOT TRUE. Ron Paul has chosen to focus remaining resources and energy on getting his delegates elected to the national Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Florida, in August. He knows he cannot go head-to-head with remaining contender Mitt Romney in buying expensive television time, not when Romney is supported by many of the major financial institutions in the US. And, Ron Paul has been collecting lots of delegates to Tampa. The media recently declared that Romney won Texas. The truth: Romney didn’t get a single national Republican delegate from Texas. He only won the beauty contest of the public Primary Election, which doesn’t matter at all for the nominating convention in Tampa. What matters are delegates. Delegate selection in Texas will be coming soon, but was not decided by the popular vote in the Primary. In many states, Ron Paul has been winning the majority of delegates (are you surprised that the media is not telling you this?) He may do that in Texas too. The bottom line is this: RON PAUL IS STILL VERY MUCH IN THE RACE.

2) Mitt Romney supports gun control. I don’t know Romney personally, but my take is that he’s a pretty decent guy. However, there’s no arguing that he’s a pretty decent LIBERAL guy. He has supported a ban on semi-autos and a ban on normal-capacity magazines. He’s supported a mandatory five-day waiting period to purchase a firearm. Worst, he’s supported a mandatory registration system of gun owners with a verification ID card for all gun owners, a step that led to all of the World’s genocides of about 165 MILLION people during the 1900s, according to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Rest assured, no matter how decent a guy Romney may be, he is NOT a friend of gun owners. About the right to keep and bear arms, Romney is very much like Obama.

So, when you go to vote on election day, please vote a Republican ballot so you can vote for Ron Paul, a lifetime supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
author, Gun Laws of Montana


Video: “If I Wanted America to Fail”