March 19, 2019

Santorum: Climate Science is Political Science

*Editor’s Note* The posting of videos or snippets of information does not indicate in any way a political endorsement by me or anyone affiliated with this web site.

Share

Two Psychotic Actions Don’t Equal Rational Justice

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a fringe, psychotic group that uses fraud and other unethical means to raise money to pay overblown salaries and fund programs not geared to saving or protecting animals, attempted to file a lawsuit on behalf of 5 California whales demanding the same constitutional rights as humans. PETA vs. Sea World was subsequently thrown out of court because the judge ruled animals don’t have the same rights as people.

As perverse as this kind of behavior is, it is not a position shared only by whacked-out PETA members. Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s pick to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has stated publicly that he believes lawsuits should be brought on behalf of animals.

The United Nations and most animal rights groups fully support the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights which claims that animals and humans all share in the same rights.

Understandably a psychotic behavior on the part of those who support such rights equity with animals, we now learn that the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is considering filing a lawsuit against PETA that would, “represent the 25,000-plus dogs and cats that PETA has killed since 1998 whose “rights” have been violated under the 5th and 8th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution”.

While the notion in and of itself is totally asinine, those who understand the differences between rights for humans and welfare for animals, get their point. I am only assuming the announcement of consideration to sue is for the purpose of making a statement and not actually an attempt at using two wrongs to somehow come up with anything that resembles truth.

Similar to the actions of the Humane Society of the United States, these two groups solicit money from anyone from small individual donors to very wealthy celebrities. In 2009 Carrie Underwood gave $200,000 to HSUS.

Unfortunately for all the donors, they are not made aware of the fact of the tens of thousands of family pets these two groups routinely euthanize, sometimes without giving any effort to find them homes.

It is very important for individuals and organizations like the Center for Consumer Freedom to recognize and expose fraud and hypocrisy as is the case here with PETA. What is not acceptable is to use PETA’s own crack-brained ideas to allow animals to have legal representation of any kind in our courts.

We get your point. Now let’s move on.

Tom Remington

Share

Obama Giving Away Our Sovereignty While the Media Stifles Any News About It

*Editor’s Note* The following is a press releases issued by the White House. I think it safe to say that very few Americans know anything about “Beyond the Border”. Disguised as a border security, economic enhancement program, anyone giving this any considerable thought at all will realize the very serious problems this agreement poses.

While Canada may be our close friends, the White House is undergoing talks with Mexico for a similar agreement. Seriously? Do we really want Mexican authorities enforcing international law agreements worked out by each country’s leaders? What is happening to our own laws and our own rights?

The most obvious, but yet not being considered, is not only loss of national sovereignty but the total destruction and disregard for state’s sovereignty, i.e. those along our borders.

And what rights is President Obama giving away that we may never see until some trumped up “emergency” declaration is declared due to who knows what? And why doesn’t the legislatures of all countries get to participate in this scheme?

In addition, with the passage of the National Defense Re-authorization Act, we know the president and our military have unprecedented authority to arrest and detain anyone, citizen or not, without due process, simply by fitting the description of the Government’s “terrorist” suspect.

Tell me this isn’t all part of a rights and property grab by Obama and his regime. It was only about 5 months ago when we learned about the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security, that would give HS power over all Federal lands within 100 miles of our borders. Before you react, consider that for a moment and then ask why would Homeland Security stop at Federal Lands?

Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg says the authorization is no big deal. It just grants Homeland Security the same authority over state and private lands in those areas it now has. What’s the big deal? Most people, even those who may be aware of this Act, don’t know “borders” also include maritime borders, i.e. our thousands of miles of coastlines.

Environmentalists have their undies in a bunch because the Act gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to suspend some of their own controlling environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

While the President and our own Congress cede away all our rights, private property and sovereignty at all levels, the general public is being intentionally denied easy access to any of this information.

The Press Release follows:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 04, 2011
Declaration by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper of Canada – Beyond the Border

Beyond the Border:
A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness

The United States and Canada are staunch allies, vital economic partners, and steadfast friends. We share common values, deep links among our citizens, and deeply rooted ties. The extensive mobility of people, goods, capital, and information between our two countries has helped ensure that our societies remain open, democratic, and prosperous.

To preserve and extend the benefits our close relationship has helped bring to Americans and Canadians alike, we intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries. We intend to do so in partnership, and in ways that support economic competitiveness, job creation, and prosperity.

We have advanced our prosperity through the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Over $250 billion of direct investment by each country in the other, and bilateral trade of more than half-a-trillion dollars a year in goods and services create and sustain millions of jobs in both our countries. At the U.S.-Canada border, nearly one million dollars in goods and services cross every minute, as well as 300,000 people every day, who cross for business, pleasure, or to maintain family ties.

The United States and Canada share a long history of cooperation in defending our values and freedoms. We stand together to confront threats to our collective security as partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We work shoulder-to-shoulder in the defense of both our nations through the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

We share responsibility for the safety, security, and resilience of the United States and of Canada in an increasingly integrated and globalized world. We intend to address security threats at the earliest point possible in a manner that respects privacy, civil liberties, and human rights.

I. Principles

We intend to work together in cooperation and partnership to develop, implement, manage, and monitor security initiatives, standards, and practices to fulfill our vision. We recognize that our efforts should accelerate job creation and economic growth through trade facilitation at our borders and contribute directly to the economic security and well-being of both the United States and Canada.

We intend to strengthen our resilience – our ability to mitigate, respond to, and recover from disruptions. Success depends on readiness at all levels of our governments, within our communities, and among private sector owners and operators of our infrastructure, systems, and networks. We rely on secure communications and transportation networks, including our civil aviation system, and we intend to work together to make them resilient enough to continue operating in the face of a natural disaster or attack.

We expect to use a risk management approach where compatible, interoperable, and – where possible – joint measures and technology should proportionately and effectively address the threats we share. Effective risk management should enable us to accelerate legitimate flows of people and goods into the United States and Canada and across our common border, while enhancing the physical security and economic competitiveness of our countries.

We build on the efforts of many partners – from police and other emergency workers to our armed forces – who continue to safeguard us from the complex threats we face.

We also recognize that cooperation across air, land, and maritime domains, as well as in space and cyberspace, our enduring bi-national defense relationship, and military support for civilian authorities engaged in disaster response efforts and critical infrastructure protection, have all contributed significantly to the security of our populations.

We recognize that greater sharing of information will strengthen our ability to achieve the goals of this vision.

We intend to work together to engage with all levels of government and with communities, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, as well as with our citizens, on innovative approaches to security and competitiveness.

We value and respect our separate constitutional and legal frameworks that protect privacy, civil liberties, and human rights and provide for appropriate recourse and redress.

We recognize the sovereign right of each country to act independently in its own interest and in accordance with its laws.

We expect to work together with third countries and with international organizations, and intend to facilitate security sector reform and capacity building around the globe, to enhance standards that contribute to our overall security.

Key Areas of Cooperation

Addressing Threats Early

Collaborating to address threats before they reach our shores, we expect to develop a common understanding of the threat environment through improved intelligence and information sharing, as well as joint threat assessments to support informed risk management decisions.

We intend to develop an integrated strategy that would enable us to meet the threats and hazards that both our nations face, including natural disasters and man-made threats, including terrorism.

We expect to continue strengthening our health security partnership, through existing mechanisms for cooperation on health emergencies, and by further enhancing our collective preparedness and response capacity to a range of health security threats, including influenza pandemics.

We intend to work together to uncover and disrupt threats that endanger the security of both the United States and Canada and to establish those agreements or policies necessary to ensure timely sharing of information for combined efforts to counter the threats. We intend to ensure we have the ability to support one another as we prepare for, withstand, and rapidly recover from disruptions. We intend to make the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Emergency Management Cooperation, updated in 2008, a cornerstone of these efforts.

To increase security, counter fraud, and improve efficiency, we intend to work together to establish and verify the identities of travelers and conduct screening at the earliest possible opportunity. We intend to work toward common technical standards for the collection, transmission, and matching of biometrics that enable the sharing of information on travelers in real time. This collaboration should facilitate combined United States and Canadian screening efforts and strengthen methods of threat notification.

In order to promote mobility between our two countries, we expect to work towards an integrated United States-Canada entry-exit system, including work towards the exchange of relevant entry information in the land environment so that documented entry into one country serves to verify exit from the other country.

We intend to cooperate to identify, prevent, and counter violent extremism in our two countries. By working cooperatively on research, sharing best practices, and emphasizing community-based and community-driven efforts, we will have a better understanding of this threat and an increased ability to address it effectively.

We intend to formulate jointly United States-Canada privacy protection principles that should inform and guide our work in relation to facilities, operations, programs, and other initiatives contemplated by this Declaration.

We intend to work together to promote the principles of human rights, privacy, and civil liberties as essential to the rule of law and effective management of our perimeter.

Trade Facilitation, Economic Growth, and Jobs

We intend to pursue creative and effective solutions to manage the flow of traffic between the United States and Canada. We will focus investment in modern infrastructure and technology at our busiest land ports of entry, which are essential to our economic well-being.

We will strive to ensure that our border crossings have the capacity to support the volume of commercial and passenger traffic inherent to economic growth and job creation on both sides of the border.

To enhance our risk management practices, we intend to continue planning together, organizing bi-national port of entry committees to coordinate planning and funding, building, expanding or modernizing shared border management facilities and border infrastructure where appropriate, and using information technology solutions.

We intend to look for opportunities to integrate our efforts and where practicable, to work together to develop joint facilities and programs – within and beyond the United States and Canada – to increase efficiency and effectiveness for both security and trade.

We aim to build on the success of current joint programs by expanding trusted traveler and trader programs, harmonizing existing programs, and automating processes at the land border to increase efficiency.

We will look for ways to reduce the cost of conducting legitimate business across the border by implementing, where practicable, common practices and streamlined procedures for customs processing and regulatory compliance.

We intend to work towards developing an integrated cargo security strategy that ensures compatible screening methods for goods and cargo before they depart foreign ports bound for the United States or Canada, so that once they enter the territory of either we can, together, accelerate subsequent crossings at land ports of entry between our two countries.

We recognize the importance of the U.S.-Canada Framework for the movement of Goods and People across the Border During and Following an Emergency, agreed to in 2009. It underscores the importance of coordinated, cooperative, and timely border management decision making to mitigate the impacts of disruptions on our citizens and economies.

Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement

We intend to build on existing bilateral law enforcement programs to develop the next generation of integrated cross-border law enforcement operations that leverage cross-designated officers and resources to jointly identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.

We intend to seek further opportunities to pursue national security and transnational crime investigations together to maximize our ability to tackle the serious security threats that these organizations and individuals present.

We intend to improve the sharing among our law enforcement agencies of relevant information to better identify serious offenders and violent criminals on both sides of the border.

Critical Infrastructure and Cybersecurity

We intend to work together to prevent, respond to, and recover from physical and cyber disruptions of critical infrastructure and to implement a comprehensive cross-border approach to strengthen the resilience of our critical and cyber infrastructure with strong cross-border engagement.

The United States and Canada benefit from shared critical and cyber infrastructure. Our countries intend to strengthen cybersecurity to protect vital government and critical digital infrastructure of national importance, and to make cyberspace safer for all our citizens.

We intend to work together to defend and protect our use of air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace, and enhance the security of our integrated transportation and communications networks.

II. Implementation and Oversight

The United States and Canada intend to establish a Beyond the Border Working Group (BBWG) composed of representatives from the appropriate departments and offices of our respective federal governments.

Responsibility for ensuring inter-agency coordination will rest with the President and the Prime Minister and their respective officials.

We intend for the BBWG to report to their respective Leaders in the coming months, and after a period of consultation, with a joint Plan of Action to realize the goals of this declaration, that would, where appropriate, rely upon existing bilateral border-related groups, for implementation.

The BBWG will report on the implementation of this declaration to Leaders on an annual basis. The mandate of the BBWG will be reviewed after three years.

Share

The Ag Minute: EPA’s Sue & Settle Strategy Makes for Bad Agriculture Policy

*Editor’s Note* The following is a press release sent out by the House Committee on Agriculture, chaired by Frank D. Lucas. I would like to point out that although this release and the information contained in it, seems directed mostly to problems with agriculture regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency, this calling of the Obama Administration’s “Sue and Settle Strategy” is very widespread and reaches every aspect of Americans’ lives.

WASHINGTON – This week during The Ag Minute, guest host Rep. Tom Rooney discusses the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) growing trend of developing public policy as the result of lawsuit settlements. This defective method of putting in place regulations that circumvent the public rulemaking process can negatively impact the agriculture community. Rep. Rooney highlights one such example with the proposed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Reporting Rule.
Click here to listen to The Ag Minute. The transcript is below.

“It seems agriculture can’t catch a break from the Obama administration’s regulatory overreach.
“The latest example has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considering a new mandate that could compromise the safety and security of America’s livestock operations.

“The proposed mandate would require all Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, to submit to the EPA a long list of proprietary information regardless of whether or not they discharge manure. This information would be made public. If you don’t comply you would face fines up to $37,500 per day.

“The problem with this proposed mandate is two-fold:

“First, livestock producers are concerned the new regulation not only violates their privacy, but also poses significant security risks. Making extensive information public could put their families and operations in peril.

“Second, this mandate is part of an ongoing and alarming trend within the EPA where policy is increasingly being developed as the result of lawsuit settlements and not the rule of law.

“This particular proposed regulation was the result of a settlement with environmental groups, so the farmers and the ranchers that will be affected by this mandate had no say in this development.

“Using lawsuit settlements to create policy is an underhanded way of changing the rules on our farmers and ranchers without their voice and consideration.”

The Ag Minute is Chairman Lucas’s weekly radio address that is released from the House Agriculture Committee.

Share

Bill Whittle: The Vote Pump

Share

Maine’s 30-Year Moose Lottery Should No Longer Be Called a Lottery

Maine has made changes again this year to its moose lottery system that some are claiming will level the playing field so everyone wins, while others are calling the changes a short term gain resulting in a long time loss. However you look at it, the bitching will continue. It’s the nature of a lottery.

So what is a lottery by definition?

1. a gambling game or method of raising money, as for some public charitable purpose, in which a large number of tickets are sold and a drawing is held for certain prizes.
2. any scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance.
3. any happening or process that is or appears to be determined by chance: to look upon life as a lottery.

I think Maine’s Moose Lottery can fit into definition #1, as the lottery has been used by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) as a method of raising revenue for the department. However, I don’t think that “the distribution of prizes by chance” much applies any longer.

Since 1982, Maine has offered some form of a “lottery” in determining who gets to go on a moose hunt. For 2012 Maine will issue 3,840 permits to perhaps 40-50,000 applicants. At one point in time there were 95,000 applicants but that has since dropped to around 45,000.

That precipitous drop has puzzled MDIFW officials and Maine’s lawmakers as it appears they have no clear understanding of why. I’m sure it’s a combination of several things, i.e. wearing off of the newness, drop in interest due to many factors including many only want to try it once, dissatisfaction with the drawing process, cost, etc.

What is known about the lottery system is there’s a lot of complaining that goes on, especially from those who have never been drawn and/or see others having been selected by lottery several times and view the system as flawed or in some cases rigged. I have no reason to believe the system is intentionally rigged, but try telling that to the person who has applied for 30 years and not been drawn.

There is no solution to the perceived problems of the Moose Lottery. Most changes to the process usually only result in a slight shifting of where the complaints come from. Perhaps I can help to explain why there are difficulties.

The first and perhaps the biggest conundrum is that MDIFW tries to run the Moose Lottery as a revenue generator. We can’t blame them for that but doing so presents difficulties. One of those complications is that the moose population should be managed scientifically. Suppose management strategies are devised through processing collected data to determine information about the moose herd. Biologists then can recommend which Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) should harvest what sex and quantity of each. Thus, the issuance of permits by sex for each of the WMDs that allow a moose hunt.

Even though some of us might think using science to determine harvest requirements would be the difficult part of the equation, it isn’t. It’s the process of issuing the permits and keeping the masses happy.

In my mind, a true lottery would be an actual one chance, random draw, some win, some lose. I’m not a statistician but I’m wondering, in theory, if 40,000 people each bought one chance at a moose lottery and the same 40,000 people bought one chance for 30 consecutive years, how many of those 40,000 would never have been drawn a winner and conversely how many win more than once? Would the results be representative of what Maine’s Moose Lottery results look like now?

A straight up lottery wasn’t satisfactory and so changes began to unfurl and now the lottery more resembles a system of equitable redistribution than a “distribution of prizes by chance”.

Is it the responsibility of the MDIFW to generate revenue or provide hunting opportunities for all license buyers? Ask 50 hunters that question and you’ll get a divided response and 50 different explanations to support their claims.

If it is MFIDW’s job to make money, then we should just allow MDIFW to conduct a lottery for a moose hunt in the best way that will generate the most money. Perhaps auctioning off the 3,840 permits to the highest 3,840 bidders would pad the coffers nicely……..well, at least for awhile.

If it’s MDIFW’s job to ensure that Maine license hunters all get a chance to hunt a moose then the lottery system should be abandoned altogether. Either concoct some mocked down version of an “Any-Deer Permit” where all licensed hunters have a season, albeit a short one, or establish as simple as can be done a rotation method of selection. I’ll spare you the details.

The changes to the lottery are an attempt to approach equity in the system. In other words, to reduce the number (and I don’t know what that number is) of people who have never been drawn for a permit. This is what is being perceived as the driving force toward justice. The question I might ask is will the number of people who will be quieted by the resolve of their viewed unfairness be greater than those who will abandon the process altogether?

Which brings us to another problem with the Maine Moose Lottery – politics. Simply put, a grumbling and unhappy wannabe moose hunter is a potential new vote if some legislator somewhere can make them happy. Need I say more?

In a true lottery, where there will always be winners and losers and the losers, a percentage, will always complain, or a rotation device where everyone eventually gets a chance, will not stop the grieving. Griping is human nature but there might be less of it than what is being echoed now.

There are a lot of unanswered questions with the latest round of attempting to legislate fairness, most of which we won’t know the answers to until 5-10 years down the road, when the moaning and groaning begins to escalate once more.

Tom Remington

Share

The Government Can

I believe I posted this video some time ago. It was sent to me yesterday and after watching it again this morning, I decided it was still very fitting as we are in the middle of a primary election and only 10 months away from November’s elections.

Share

Florida Republican Primary Voting Today

Today is primary voting day for registered republicans in Florida to choose who will represent their party in the November election against incumbent President Barack Obama.

I voted. I just returned. I hopped on my bicycle at 10:05 and peddled about one mile to the precinct, cast my vote and peddled home knowing and resting in comfort that for the next year anyone who doesn’t like my berating of the politicians and ask me if I voted, I can say yes! A vote cast is a permit to bitch.

Get your bitching permit today! (And God make my telephone stop ringing!!!)

Tom Remington

Share

A “Feeding” Tube is a Media Device

It’s political regurgitation season once again and once again the people are fully displaying their inability to think, evoke history or differentiate truth. But it’s not solely their fault.

For those of us fortunate enough to be living in Florida, we have all become subjected to the intrusion of filthy and disgusting mass robotic telephone messages that seldom allow anyone to have a moment of peace. It’s worse than living with several 2 and 3-year-old children who have yet to grasp mentally those benign traits necessary for coexistence.

Because our dishonest and lying lawmakers exempted themselves from “do not call” lists, the primary season has them out in full battle gear intruding into every aspect of our lives. It’s worse than SPAM.

What is the reason for this? It’s because the average voter fits a certain profile; a portrait of a non thinker that requires a feeding tube in order to know what is required of them and what decisions to make. The creation of this caricature began in our infancy, molding us into what we have become. As such, those so-called masters of the campaign strategies, believe they know what each candidate should say and do to get you to vote for them, regardless of truth.

Most voters require a feeding tube in order to get their political nutrition. I laughed this morning as I was preparing information to write this article. I decided to Google “feeding tube”. Wikipedia’s first sentences reads: “A feeding tube is a medical device used to provide nutrition to patients who cannot obtain nutrition by swallowing.” Bingo! I changed a couple of words and came up with this: “A feeding tube is a media device used to provide political nutrition to voters who cannot obtain nutrition by thinking.”

As of this writing, there are four GOP candidates remaining in the race. Mitt Romney will be 65 in March. Newt Gingrich will be 69 in June. Ron Paul will be 77 in August and Rick Santorum will be 54 in May. Anyone who has mental capacity to think and recall, knows all about Mitt Romney. He was governor of Massachusetts. The same can be said of Gingrich, who spent years in the United State Congress and was Speaker of the House. Ron Paul has been around in Congress longer than the dust in some of the cracks and Rick Santorum was a senator from Pennsylvania. All of this and people require a televised debate, where biased and misleading questions are asked to candidates, the most who have been instructed how to answer them in order to please the most number of voters. And if having all this valuable information available, there are voters who are undecided. Really?

Because we have been programmed to know where our political nutrition must come from, voters sit down and plug in their feeding tubes to all sources of media. But like with eating food or even taking it by feeding tube, our stomachs must retain the ability to digest and process this food to get the nutrients from it. Being tube fed by the media, still requires the act of digestion. In other words, it is required of the voter, even if you can no longer swallow, to digest the information discarding the waste and using the nutrients.

Media is very powerful. It decides many things in this country and around the world. We are programmed to believe that what comes from media is truth. It is not. There are facts mixed with propaganda – nutrition mixed with waste. You can digest it or regurgitate it.

It is time for voters to once again learn to chew and swallow, get rid of the media feeding tube and engage a thinking-for-yourself kind of brain. Or, you can let the feeding tube tell you how to vote, what to think and how to act.

Tom Remington

Share

Montana Gubernatorial Candidate Fanning to Restructure FWP “So Help Me God!”

In an email exchange, of which I have been made privy to, it shows that even among the ranks of those with a common interest, opinions vary and disagreements persist.

A concerned Montana citizen, Tom Madden, sends an email to Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA). Madden takes Marbut to task in what he sees as the position of the MSSA to “gut” the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP).

The thought of a group like yours wanting to gut the FWP is very unsettling to many of us and we see it as yet another attempt or reason to institute Ranching for wildlife which would kill the sport of fair chase hunting and the reason most Montanan’s live here and work for shit wages.

From this email, it appears that Mr. Madden believes what problems exist in wildlife management in Montana can be rectified through government legislation. Ironic as it appears, Madden blames the problems of wildlife management on the Legislature and suggests using the Legislature to correct those problems. His solution is a bill that “increases the elk objectives” so there are enough elk to feed both hunters and large predators; a task easy to express and difficult to accomplish.

Increasing the the elk objectives across the board by 35% would do wonders to bring the elk heards[sic] back. also[sic] create and pass a bill that has a wolf objective number that would only allow X number of breeding wolves thus reducing the unregulated wolf population.

Madden further goes on to reveal that his perceptions are that “sportsmen” must all comprise a population of wealthy people of whom the majority spend $50 – $100 a day at the shooting range, are members of country clubs and can drop $50 – $100 anytime they have a mind for a tank of gas, and as such should be able to pay whatever the price is that MFWP asks for a license fee.

Madden promises Marbut that his group of “sportsmen” are going to bring “MANY bills” to the Montana Congress, that will be “PRO sportsman”, full of “common sence”[sic], and “good bills, well thought out that include resident sportsmen.” Madden suggests MSSA “take a proactive approach to fixing the problems created by the Legislature”.

Gary Marbut responded directly to Mr. Madden by first explaining who specifically MSSA advocates for.

MSSA does not advocate for “sportsmen.” MSSA advocates for hunters, primarily the typical Montana hunter who needs to fill his freezer to feed his family for the following year. Frankly, we don’t care much about cockfighting, fox hunting with hounds and horses, collecting trophy mounts, or many of the other things covered by the term “sportsman.” MSSA does not advocate for landowners or ranchers. They have their own lobby. Ditto outfitters.

Marbut explains that those MSSA advocates for “certainly not any more wealthy, on average, than the average Montana citizen”, and shares the reason these Montana citizens aren’t buying is because, “there is nothing left to hunt, because FWP has gone so readily along with the plan to feed Montana’s game herds to large predators (especially wolves, but including bears and lions) rather than Montana families.”.

After an explanation of the positions of MSSA, Mr. Marbut then takes the MFWP to task for their failures citing:

1. “FWP has clearly failed in its duty under law to properly manage and protect Montana’s herds of huntable game – to preserve those herds for those who have always paid the bills, hunters. The agency has long maintained a culture of arrogance and disdain for what anyone but the FWP elite wish to do or accomplish with Montana’s hunting heritage.”

2. “FWP even vigorously opposed MSSA’s decade-long but ultimately successful effort to put the Right to Hunt into the Montana Constitution.”

3. “FWP has been begged, asked, persuaded and even commanded by the Legislature to change its ways and listen to common sense. The agency has made endless excuses why it does something different than is requested, or even mandated by the Legislature. The agency will NOT listen.”

From this point, Marbut explains why his position is to “gut” MFWP.

FWP has demonstrated for far too long that it simply doesn’t care what anyone but the agency thinks or wants and will use any disingenuous tactic to defend its turf. The only recourse it has left Montana is to jerk the rug out from under it. I wish things had not come to this impasse, but it is only FWP that is responsible. At this point, no amount of promises to “do better” will satisfy the thousands of Montanans who have watched in frustration as FWP sold out our heritage.

Robert Fanning, Jr. is a candidate for the office of governor in the state of Montana. He is also founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd. As a recipient of the above referenced email, Fanning took the opportunity to show his position on wildlife management in his home state. In August of 2011, the early stages of Fanning’s campaign, he shared with supporters his proposals for MFWP if he were governor. In the email he urges us to read what he wrote last August and to reference a bill, HB343, proposed in 2007 that was to seek the removal of gray wolves in Montana from the Endangered Species List and just as importantly seek damages caused by the reintroduction of wolves and the poor management since reintroduction.

While I have provided above a link to Fanning’s August proposals, I have decided it would be appropriate to republish his piece here.

Robert Fanning, Candidate Mt. Governor Reveals His Proposals for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department

In a recent email sent out to subscribers, Robert T. Fanning, founder of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, outdoorsman, economist, political activist and now candidate for Montana governor, offered some of his notions of what a revamped Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department would look like under his watch.

1) Mt. FW&P primary mission will be about access to wild game meat for Montanans’ poor, voiceless and common man (especially-particularly veterans) rather than feeding federal wolves valuable protein which is the property of our citizens. See 2005 HJR 29 which I helped author below, these are the values of a super majority of our citizens.

2) Non game species will be defunded except for the location, collaring and control of wolves in strict adherence with Montana law.

3) Montana FW&P will get a regular, true and accurate peer reviewed census of the location and number of every ungulate within her 147,042 sq mi borders. The F&G commission will see to it that Montanans are given access to huntable game populations all over the state. Conservation easements, etc. don’t transfer title of Montana’s game herds to private land owners.

4) All wolf packs will be located and collared in strict adherence with Montana law. The federal “Wolf Implimentation Rules of Nov. 18 1994? will be overriding policy for all problem wolves.

5) Once Mt FW&P has been completely restructured and streamlined; administration, oversight, all funding and policy direction, will be completely turned over to the legislature. The Executive branch will never again be able to use our wildlife policy to raise money for an Executive branch political campaign war chest.

6) Mt FW&P will not be allowed to lobby the legislature. They will answer the Legislatures’ direct questions as informational witnesses, then leave the Capitol building.

7) SENATE BILL NO. 163….2001 Montana Legislature will be reversed IF the federal government does not pay for their unfunded “experimental non-essential” wolf mandate and install a federal 5th amendment restitution mechanism for those “harmed” in the past and all those forced to pay “the wolf tax” in the future. Natural rights, civil rights and Constitutional rights will trump the ESA in Montana, so help me God.

8) Echinococcus granulosus hydatid disease, neospora caninum and 28 other wolf born diseases & parasites will be objectively studied with highly competent peer reviewed science and quantified as public health threats, threats to our ungulates and their capacity to reproduce/recruit and Montanans’ livestock industry.

Share