August 19, 2017

Why Constitutional Amendments to “Protect” Hunting Need The Correct Language

Many states have tried, some have succeeded, in getting a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and trap…or at least they think they have. Truth is, very few, and perhaps no state, has made a success out of actually protecting and guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish and trap. Essentially what they have done is end up with legalese, fit only for the law profession, that says the state recognizes that hunting, fishing and trapping are long held traditions and these activities have been used as part of a game management plan. The new laws then make people think this tradition is being protected, when it is not. And here’s why.

As an example of the wrong wording in a right to hunt, fish and trap constitutional amendment, the state of Maine, over the past few years, has bounced around half-efforts to get an amendment passed. However, I have opposed all wording of this effort because it’s fake wording that fails to provide the protection that I believe most sportsmen want.

Without the proper, tough and direct language, while there may be recognition of how hunting, fishing and trapping have been a part of game management and responsible use of natural resources, all attempts have failed to provide language that forces the state, along with their natural resources departments. or fish and game departments, to manage all game species specifically for surplus harvests. I might point out that this kind of tough language is generally opposed by legislators and in particular heads of fish and game departments. The biggest reason is because most fish and game departments have already morphed beyond sensible and scientific game management in favor of environmentalism’s “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science.”

Without this kind of tough and direct language, fish and game departments and/or state governments, can end hunting, fishing and trapping at anytime. With a growth and power of the progressive Left, a totalitarian social effort to end all hunting, fishing and trapping, mostly driven by an extremely perverse animal rights society, not only are fish and wildlife departments gradually, and sometimes not so gradual, are becoming more anti hunting, fishing and trapping, but the general electorate can end hunting, fishing or trapping with one effort at the ballot box with zero consideration for science.

An example of that is seen in British Columbia, Canada, where voters have decided to ban grizzly bear hunting because it doesn’t fit their ideological narrative. As was said by Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Minister Doug Donaldson, “[It is]not a matter of numbers, it’s a matter of society has come to the point in B.C. where they are no longer in favour of the grizzly bear trophy hunt.”

Certainly this reflects the desires of the people, a product of a totalitarian democracy of sorts (two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for lunch), where a simple vote can destroy long held traditions as well as making a mockery out of wildlife science.

While there never exists any true guarantee of a right to hunt, fish and trap, one does have to wonder if this same kind of referendum would have even been attempted if a true constitutional amendment existed with real power that said it is the mandated function of government to manage all game species for the purpose of surplus harvest and use of natural resources.

It is often argued about whether wildlife is part of the public trust. In my 65 years of life, I do not recall anyone suggesting that viewing wildlife, even out one’s back door, should be stopped or that managers should grow game species to levels that would be harmful to a healthy establishment of animal species. Why is it then, as seems to be the way of the “new” progressive society, that society has little interest in the aspects of the public trust when it comes to the public trust involvement of hunters, fishermen and trappers? In their pea brains, hunters, trappers and fishermen are excluded from any participation in a public trust.

A classic example of totalitarians at work.

Next time anyone begins talking about another proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt, trap and fish, please take a little extra time and honestly ask yourself if what is being proposed will do what it is being sold as doing and is worth any effort to get it passed. Contrary to what the politician will tell you. something is NOT better than nothing.

But, isn’t it now just too late? Does there even exist enough people who aren’t mentally destroyed and manipulated with animal rights and environmentalism, along with Romance Biology and Voodoo Science?

Share

Should Maine Licensed Hunters and Fisherman Help Landowners Clean Up After Being Targeted for Undue Process?

So, let’s get this straight. I just received a press release from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife seeking volunteers to help clean up trash, etc. on land owned by private individuals “to secure access to private land for recreational use and show your appreciation for Maine’s landowners.” Maybe licensed hunters and fishermen should seriously consider whether helping out the landowner who just screwed them over is in everyone’s best interest.

The Maine Legislature recently passed a bill, which unjustly targets licensed hunters and fishermen for extra punishment if caught harming signs and other private property. If you create the same damage and are not a licensed hunter or fishermen, there is no extra penalty for said crime.

One can understand the frustration of a landowner who is tired of replacing damaged signs or other property, but to specifically target one group is unlawful and until attention is brought to this travesty passed by the Maine Legislature, why should any licensed hunter or fisherman help out a landowner who just saw to it that you would get doubly screwed over for breaking the same law as an unlicensed person?

Sorry, landowners. I have always supported the rights of landowners and will continue to do so. I will not stand ignorantly by while I am unjustly targeted for extra criminal penalties for committing the same crime as an unlicensed person. Until that law is changed, and intelligent landowners step forward to change this law, licensed hunters should send a message.

But, they won’t!

Share

LESSONS FROM A COMATOSE CHILD

By James Beers

The following WSJ article is an excellent description of how we have all allowed the British and our (EU & UN too) government’s declining value on human life to increasingly distort our culture and ultimately destroy all of our (once) “unalienable” rights.  Like the old saw about which was first, the chicken or the egg; unfettered government invariably assumes and then believes that we are “its” creation, rather than the other way around.

As you read the article, consider the parallels between British Health Care (BHC), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA.

–       All three were made into law to save something: BHC to save human lives; the ESA to “save” species; and NEPA to “save” the environment.

All three evolved into government programs that were soon unimaginable to those that supported passage:

–       A BHC that would seize parental authority and jurisdiction over their own children and then mandate the child’s death despite vigorous parental objections?

–       A BHC integrated with Assisted Suicide advocates and forcible terminations of select adult’s lives?

–       An ESA that would seize state and local jurisdictions and authorities and force deadly and destructive animals like wolves and grizzly bears on rural Americans despite their loud and vociferous objections?

–       An ESA that purportedly empowered federal bureaucrats to take “private property” of all sorts “without compensation” while enabling quickening expansion of federal landholdings as unmanaged enclaves of federal authority and jurisdictions at the expense of diminished state and local political influence and power?

–       A NEPA that has the singular goal of forbidding any and all natural resource (coal, drilling, logging, lead mining and smelting, grazing, hunting, fishing, etc.) management, extraction or use while enabling federal takeover of more and more of American life and private property?

–       A NEPA that actually became so arrogant as to encourage bureaucrats to imagine their own fantasy authority and jurisdiction over “all waters of the United States” that by including these water’s watersheds means all of the land mass of

The United States?

In summary, government power and ability to abuse “the governed” is ever present and must be watched and limited constantly.  It is always a primary hidden agenda behind every purported “good purpose” like “saving” human lives or wild species or the environment.

Government is like a tree in a suburban yard.  When the tree, like any government, goes unpruned and untended for too long:

–       It shades out the garden it was intended to protect from the wind.

–       It occupies the air space the kids used to play ball.

–       It kills the grass.

–       It erupts all over the ground with roots that make uses impossible.

–       It sends roots into the basement causing cracks and leaks.

–       It drops leaves into gutters that must be cleaned at great expense and risk.

–       It deposits branches in the yard and on the roof that you must spend time and money to clean up.

–       It eventually falls on the house in a windstorm killing the owners in their beds and then leaving a barren lot with roots everywhere, a wrecked home, and a stump.

Don’t let anyone tell you can’t or shouldn’t complain about government.  That is like saying anyone that does, hates trees and wants to live on a barren lot.  That is not the choice.  The choice is a sensible tree species, pruned constantly and removed when it begins becoming destructive before it creates an eventual disaster as your life on your lot becomes poorer and poorer and you eventually die in your sleep from a falling tree – just like BHS, the ESA and NEPA need either severe pruning (as a result of being ignored) or removal.

I vote for removal.

Jim Beers

18 July 2017

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

Link to article 

Note: Reading the article at the Wall Street Journal website requires a subscription.

Share

Are All Men Created Equal?

by James Beers:

Please read the short link below from Klamath Falls, Oregon.

We are all “Created” Equal but then at birth Government dictates, not decides – dictates:

–          Who gets preferences for jobs, schools, and myriad “benefits”.

–          Who must have a “Permit”, what the terms of the “permit” are, and which “Tribe” is  exempt from abiding by the conditions and which is harassed and has their families destroyed based on bureaucratic whims much like those of the Royal French government that had filled the Bastille not long after our Revolutionary War.

–          Who gets prosecuted for trespass, permit violations, killing a wolf or an eagle, rioting, property damage, assault and battery, and etcetera.

–          Who gets punished for what others are forgiven by “judges” that have become little more than Partisan Pandering Politicians Protected on an iron-clad government dole.

–          Who gets shot or imprisoned or ignored for the same actions.

–          Who gets “pardoned and released” for felonies (with an immediately-granted reauthorized right to vote) from prison early to vote for their Political Patrons.

–          Who gets forced to live with protected wolves and grizzly bears and who gets government-financed animal control for rats, coyotes, raccoons, feral dogs, skunks, black bears …

On the heels of our Independence Day and France’s Bastille Day these matters and especially the corrupt federal “environmental/animal rights/conservation/land ownership” and so-called natural resource “management” agencies cry out for a thorough and comprehensive SHAKE UP.

It is apparent that these federal agencies need a thorough house cleaning, reduced presence, reordered policies and a national Repeal of the un-Constitutional authorities and policies that they manipulate and even helped create over the past 45 years to remake our once proud Republic striving for “Equality” for All into Tribal groups that they manipulate with Tribal discretion and encouraged Tribal rivalries to expand their own and their political patrons benefit.

Ranchers fume as ‘Rainbow Family’ set to camp on federal land in Oregon, ParticleNews.com, posted to KBC 7/14/17. “He said the “takeover of federal ground” is no different than the Bundy group’s occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters….”

 

Jim Beers

15 July 2017

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

Share

We Must Never Learn to Live With Large Animal Predators

Proverbs 17: 27, 28 – He that hath knowledge, spareth his words, and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.

28 Even a fool, (when he holdeth his peace) is counted wise, and he that stoppeth his lips, prudent.

Throughout man’s history it has never been considered intelligent to “learn to live with” large predators. Quite the opposite and for good reason. However, living in a post normal society, rooted deeply in perversion and misguided nonsense of “Romance Biology” and “Voodoo Science,” people, in their perverse perspectives of animals, including wild ones, believe that wild animals, particularly large animal predators, should be allowed existence elbow to elbow within human-settled landscapes.

As an example of everything that is wrong with today’s perspective into the role of animals and man, we find another written piece, that should one rephrase Proverbs 17: 27 and 28, it might read, it is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

In another written form of mental drool we find someone attempting to force a terrible event onto the general public by telling us that, “we must learn to live with coyotes.” My response is, no we shouldn’t and for many reasons. But how do you reason with those who find the basis of life rooted in mental drool?

Let’s take a look for a minute.

The piece begins with this statement: “Studies show that spending money trying to control our native population of coywolves is almost entirely a waste.” I would suppose that subtitling this opinion piece in this fashion actually sets the stage for the entire event. It is utter nonsense and here’s why.

“Studies show” means absolutely nothing in reality. One should understand that a study should be intended to prove or disprove a theory. In today’s fake science, or Scientism, a “study” is nothing more than the expression of one’s opinion most often based on already expressed opinions and suppositions of other people; the proverbial Echo Chamber is but one example.

However, later in the opinion piece, the author attempts to take the intellectual high ground by providing “science” to show that when attempts at “coyote control” result in the killing of coyotes to control populations, coyotes simply reproduce more coyotes to compensate their losses, he provides readers with a link to the opinion piece of another man who espouses to the same unproven theory. The fact is there is no real science that determines whether such a theory is true or false. There exist opinions and suggestions but no real scientific proof as this author seems to suggest. It is impossible to make honest evaluation out of anything when dealing with false and misguided information.

The remainder of this subtitle is quite laughable when considered throughout the article written. “Native population of coywolves,” as used might be considered as anarthrous – a false title that becomes such due to a lack of an article premodifier such as “a” or “the.” As such “native population of coywolves” if being given a false title because there is no such things as a “native population of coywolves.” Part of that proof comes when you consider what a “coywolf” is in the context of the writing. The author defines coywolf as, “a hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog.”

As clarification, recent work by scientists, examining DNA samples of wild canines captured in much of the Northeast reveals the admixture of some form of coyote, some form of wolf, some form of domestic dog and some form of hybrid, domesticated wolf/dog.

Where we are being told that “we must learn to live with coyotes,” takes place in Maine. Coyotes are not “native” to Maine. There once existed a population of some subspecies of wolf but never a coyote. Therefore claiming that this “hybrid of the coyote, wolf and domestic dog” is a native population makes no sense and is highly inaccurate and misleading, perhaps intentionally so to promote ones agenda to perpetuate and protect large predators.

 

In another attempt at making “Scientism” fit the narrative, the author attempts to substantiate the claim that coywolves don’t kill deer in numbers worth consideration. Whether that is true or not, the dishonesty, to protect that agenda, is that there is no explanation given as to why “just 8 percent of the adult deer on which coywolves were feeding in winter “had been killed conclusively”.”

I am reminded of the conundrum that did and does exist in compensating ranchers for livestock losses attributed to depredation by wolves. Under the guidelines in place, it is next to impossible to “conclusively” determine the cause of death of the livestock. While common sense tells a rational person what took place, following strict guidelines often forces examiners to not attribute livestock kills to animal predators.

Such is the case with attempting to determine “conclusively” that coywolves killed deer and to what extent that would be.

Perhaps the most bizarre, and extremely ignorant, statement made in this opinion piece is this one: “Coywolves are native to Maine and are not an invasive species. Their existence is the result of natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves, and they are now an integral part of our ecosystem.”

I would suppose that with a person’s perverted and misguided perspectives on life and reality, one could dishonestly attempt an explanation that coywolves are native to Maine because the crossbreeding took place in Maine? But really, “a natural immigration and filling a void in the ecosystem created when humans exterminated wolves?” How dishonestly ignorant can one get?

There is nothing natural about the existence of the so-called coywolf. In “Nature,” that is a “Nature” that includes the existence of man, excluding forced perverted regulations to protect animal predators and “learn to live with” them, wolves remain separate from humans because humans kill them. These large predators are dangerous, carry diseases and destroy private property. There is nothing wrong with understanding this reality and sensibly living according to it. It is part of man’s technique for survival. It is misguided perversion to believe and want to “learn to live with” these large animal predators. Coyotes, should be much the same. They should remain separate from where man lives. THIS IS NATURAL because man’s existence is natural. It is very much unnatural to expect and want to “learn to live with” dangerous, large animal predators. We have been seriously misguided. We do not understand, and will not understand, that this desired lifestyle not only promotes scarcity and misuse of all natural resources but directly contributes to man’s destruction – that is one is participating in their own destruction. Makes no sense at all.

Man also has “learned to live with” pets and in particular, domestic dogs. There are so many domestic dogs, many of which roam free. When you combine the unnatural over protection of wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs, you will unnaturally will end up with an admixture of the three and more. To justify all of this utter nonsense, we are supposed to believe that this mongrel, feral dog is the result of Nature and that it is a “native” beast that should be further protected and that we should “learn to live with” them? I think not. And how can such an unnatural manipulation caused by man’s foolishness, be protected and perpetuated.? What foolishness.

Large predator advocates continue to heavily rely on ancient theories of predator/prey relationships, mostly because these theories nicely support their own narratives and agendas. That does not make them factual or right.

The author makes claims of the lack of “scientific evidence” but relies on 32-year-old theories as his basis of scientific, high-road evidence.

Everybody and everything loses when we strive to “learn to live with” wild animal predators. We are willfully blind and cannot see the destruction we have caused to the very species these misguided totalitarians insist on protecting. Nature, as many like to rely on, has a way of keeping things separate. With this separation comes the protection of the species. Dogs are dogs are dogs and when wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs and mixed breeds are forced to “learn to live with” each other, the ONLY result will be further crossbreeding and a destruction of the wolf and coyote species. What then becomes of the “natural regulation” these confused predator lovers love to promote? Doesn’t the deliberate, although perhaps not direct, alteration of one or more species, upset the “balance of nature,” according to their own environmental bibles?

When rightfully man remains part of the “natural” order of things, man’s dominance, by killing predators, especially those that prey on livestock and people, helps to ensure that separation of species. But instead, we move in the opposite direction. Totalitarians working round the clock to force perverted lifestyles onto others believing that man is bad, that animals are good and deserve the same and better “rights” than people do. Thus the landscape is overrun with dangerous predators – a combination that is beneficial to nobody or no thing.

We should never “learn to live with” coyotes or any other large predator. We have been dishonestly taught that if all these animals don’t live in our back yards, so we can see them everyday, man is causing them to go extinct. To protect ourselves, our property and to honestly protect and preserve the species as they were intended to be, we need to continue to keep the numbers in check and away from human-settle landscapes where death and disease will take over and become the controlling factor.

Never “learn to live with them.”

This website contain countless articles related to this subject. The search function works well or I might suggest following this link to see pages of articles containing the subject matter of hybrids and the role concerning wolves, coyotes and domestic dogs. Not all the articles are opinion pieces. Most are factual and supported by scientific evidence.

The author of this piece in reference states, “It’s time for science and responsible journalism to supplant ignorance and undocumented propaganda.” What an appropriate demand. It’s unfortunate that this author has no science and his opinion piece is nothing more than “undocumented propaganda” (although I don’t know what undocumented propaganda is). Unlike this example of propaganda, strewn throughout the existence of all irresponsible journalism, my website contains years of study and research and provides the reader with an endless library of years worth of material on the subject.

I hope you appreciate that.

Share

Maine Passes Bill That Unconstitutionally Targets Hunters and Fishermen

This is a tough one to address because I do not, in any way, shape or form, condone the destruction of anybody’s property, including “Posted” or “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557, with amendments, has passed the Maine Legislature that, in summary, states: “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.”

There should be laws that protect a landowner from such destruction, and there probably are. Piling on to prove a point, while it might be a bit understandable, particularly to a frustrated land owner, cannot be justified by targeting a specific sector of the general public to punish that group for a law violation more than any other member of the public that is not part of the hunting and fishing community.

Even in testimony given in support of the law, a landowner states that he believes the majority of sign destruction comes from “hunters” shooting up his signs, but also admits destruction of his property, other than just signs, is being carried out by many different individuals and groups of individuals. Is it then constitutional to increase punishment on one group over others? I think not!

I’m not a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this law is not right. I am surprised that the Maine Legislature, the Governor, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others supported this law and could not see that it violates the constitutional rights of licensed hunters and licensed fishermen.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for a dismissal of lawful punishment for the willful act of property destruction, protected by Maine law. However, in order to be justified in taking away the licences of hunters and fishermen for one year, then one must ask what is the punishment for the same kind of destruction that might be carried out by a snowmobiler, an ATVer, a hiker, a berry picker, etc.?

I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case a hunter or fisherman, is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.

As a society we have been programmed to believe that the more draconian our laws are the more of a deterrent it is to prevent the crime in the first place. Whether that is true or not, I do not have the data to show one way or another. All drivers of automobiles that violate the law by speeding, are subject to the same set of laws and punishments. Would it be considered the right thing if hunters and fishermen were targeted for greater punishment because somebody believes them to speed more than other groups or individuals? This is what this new law allows.

This bill needs to be repealed and a different, constitutional approach taken in order to protect the rights of all people to ensure equal protection under the law, due process and to stop the obvious discrimination this law allows.

 

Share

SAM Claims High Road to Protect Second Amendment

They might claim that high road, but do they actually do what they say they are doing. According to SAM’s Facebook Page, “Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine-Leading through Action!”

On their list of achievements is the passage of LD 9 – “to Ban State of Government Agencies from Creating Gun Owner Registry.”

“An Act to Prohibit the Creation of a Firearm Owner Registry”, sponsored by Rep. Patrick Corey is now law. This quote from the last SAM News accurately sums up this important SAM bill, “The creation of a gun owner registry is the Holy Grail for gun control advocates, because all extreme gun control measures like semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, and other firearm confiscation schemes, require a database of firearm owners to enforce. Without the government knowing who owns what types of guns and where they are, there is no way to reduce the number of guns in private ownership.” (emphasis added)

Below is the text of LD 9 (also from SAM Facebook page)

Sec. 1. 25 MRSA §2014 is enacted to read:
§2014. Government firearm or firearm owner registry prohibited Notwithstanding and other provision of law to the contrary, a government agency of this State or a political subdivision of this State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction. (emphasis added)

SUMMARY

This amendment, which is the majority report of the committee, replaces the bill and provides that a government agency of the State or a political subdivision of the State may not keep or cause to be kept a comprehensive registry of privately owned firearms and the owners of those firearms within its jurisdiction.” (emphasis added)

We are programmed to automatically accept any effort by those claiming to be in support of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, passage of any law that claims to protect gun owners or ease the restrictions on gun ownership, we blindly accept as a good thing. It might be better…or the equivalent of being hung with a new rope, than continued chopping to bits our Second Amendment rights, but even if you keep cutting off pieces of a plank, a little here and a little there, eventually there’s no more plank and you free fall.

LD 9 is being hailed as a victory for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and gun owners because they say, as I highlighted above, The creation of a gun owner registry is the Holy Grail for gun control advocates, because all extreme gun control measures like semi-automatic bans, high capacity magazine bans, and other firearm confiscation schemes, require a database of firearm owners to enforce. Without the government knowing who owns what types of guns and where they are, there is no way to reduce the number of guns in private ownership.”

This Bill, LD 9, is being flaunted as a bill that will prohibit the “comprehensive registry” of all firearms, and that without such a registry, governments and non governmental agencies cannot confiscate guns because they won’t know where to find them.

The first question I might ask is this: What will be the state of things in this country WHEN the U.S. Government goes about confiscating our firearms? Will following the rule of law any longer exist?

I thought so.

A federal firearms dealer is required to “register” every gun he sells and keep a record. As I understand LD 9, now a licensed firearms dealer will have to make a second copy of that registration, mark it “State Copy” and make it available to any government, law enforcement or prosecuting attorney upon demand. That’s some protection of a gun owner from that registry created at the point of sale. (Note: It was brought to my attention, and correctly so, that current law requires the “State Copy” to be kept on file. LD 9 eliminates the “State Copy” and thus the only “registration” of the purchase of your gun is the one created by the federally licensed gun dealer. Also understand that this registration is still a registration and can and will be accessed when the governments so desire.)

LD 9 prohibits the creation of a “comprehensive registry” (whatever lawyer wants to define that one for us). Comprehensive, in the context used (I’m guessing), means complete. Please define “complete.” Who gets to decide? We are not told that and this is the kind of crap sandwich we are fed by lawyers. They craft laws for themselves not for you and I.

So, if it is now unlawful for the Government to “keep or cause to be kept” a “comprehensive” gun registry, does that mean if they leave off the registration, say your sexual preference, does that now make the registry “uncomprehensive” and thus can be used by governments and law enforcement when it comes time to confiscate your REGISTERED guns that you REGISTERED when you purchased your guns from a licensed dealer.

Stop kidding yourselves! The Second Amendment is the only item in the Bill of Rights that we, not only give away, but do so gladly and all the while believing we are doing the “reasonable” thing.

Share

More Nonsensical Nonsense About Man’s “Impoverish”ing Wildlife

As nauseating as it is, we hear it all the time – how man is destroying everything and how man is disrupting the balance of nature… which doesn’t exist. Most often mixed in with the rant about how man treats animals we hear, although most often implied, that man should just go away. That, of course, can only be defined as man must die in order to save the animals and our ecosystems.

Last time I checked the Earth is inhabited with a variety of plant and animal life, and while many often want to see man disappear, none are willing to step forward and be the first to do what they have deemed in their tiny minds as the only right thing to do to “Save the Planet.”

In addition, we can also read really stupid things. Here’s an example. This author evidently believes that it is wrong to “manage” game species for surplus harvest. He writes, “A typical response of utilitarians to environmental harm is to call for better management.  So, for example, wildlife agencies manage game species and their habitat so that more of the desired species are available for “harvest.”  In Maine, we manage coyote (that is encourage hunting coyotes) because of the belief that coyotes reduce the number of deer for hunters.”

Simply stated, this is a reasonable approach to utilizing a valuable resource rather than letting it go to waste. Science does show us that within a robust population of, let’s say deer, a percentage of those animals will suffer and die simply because there are too many of them. Is this somehow better than harvesting a percentage to fulfill the wants and needs of people?

Although we could argue this point until the moon turns blue, a point I wanted to make is that while this author finds it wrong to manipulate animal and game populations for the benefit of all, including hunting, he evidently sees no problem with manipulating feral and domestic cat populations for the benefit of “saving” song birds. “As I pointed out in an early blog…, feral cats and cats whose owners let them roam outside kill hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, song birds each year.  Why is it that we get to choose that a species we domesticated is more important than wild birds?”

The fact is, people are never going to take it upon themselves to either leave their cats, and all their other pets indoors. Therefore, the only other course of action to “save song birds” is to kill cats. While the author questions whether manipulating the number of coyotes that kill deer, that are used as a food source, is an ethical thing to do, evidently the feral and domestic cats don’t share the same rights of existence as the coyote. In addition, I guess it just depends on one’s selfish desires of how they want to take advantage of wildlife.

No matter how you view the use of our God-given resources, I wonder, if ever, people will one day realize and admit that man is on this earth and that it belongs to them…even if for a short time? We simply cannot approach wildlife management with any formula that does not include the existence of man.

Share

Maine Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Given Authority Over Turkey Hunting Dates and Bag Limits

An amended bill, LD98, gives the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife authority to set hunting season dates and bag limits on wild turkeys. In addition, the Department can implement special hunts for wild turkeys when it is deemed a necessity.

Each of us will have to decide whether we think granting this authority to the Department is a good thing or a bad thing. But then again, does it really matter if the Department never uses it? For those who are suffering crop damages and/or other livestock or property damage issues, I hope the Commissioner at least opts to implement some special hunts to mitigate the losses.

One report is being spread around the state that an apple orchard company is losing over $1 million a year in crop damage. MDIFW should begin immediately to stop this problem.

Share

Hearing Focuses on Bills to Protect Property Rights, Increase Federal Transparency

Press Release from the House Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: (I added a link and copy of H.R. 1830 the Water Rights Protection Act)

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 18, 2017

Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held a legislative hearing on two bills to increase federal transparency, safeguard private and state water rights, and provide certainty to water and power users.

The “Water Rights Protection Act” discussion draft (Rep. Scott Tipton, R-CO) protects state water law and private property rights from future federal takings.

Private water rights holders should not live in fear of the federal government coming after them. Mr. Tipton’s bill is necessary to ensure that privately held water rights cannot be extracted by the federal government in the future as a condition to secure a federal permit,Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said.

Over many decades, federal attempts to manipulate the federal permit, lease and land management process to circumvent long-established state water law and hijack privately-held water rights have sounded the alarm for all non-federal water users that rely on these water rights for their livelihood. The Water Rights Protection Act is commonsense legislation that provides certainty by upholding longstanding federal deference to state water law,Rep. Tipton stated.

Vice President of the Utah Farm Bureau Randy Parker discussed the water rights issues he sees on the ground everyday as the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) “systematically challeng[e] state sovereignty and historically held water rights on public lands.”

The ongoing protests, claims, coercion and even bullying by agents of the FS and the BLM has created and continues to cause considerable uncertainty for ranching families across the West,” Parker said.

Chris Treese, Manager for External Affairs at the Colorado River Water Conservation District, urged swift passage of the “Water Rights Protection Act” to avoid the inevitable downward spiral of litigation.

Unless the FS commits to respecting Western states’ individual water rights adjudication systems to accomplish its flow-related goals, the only sure outcome is contentious, lengthy and expensive litigation. This is a result in no one’s interest, including the environment,” Treese stated.

H.R. 2371 (Rep. Paul Gosar, R-AZ), the “Western Area Power Administration Transparency Act,” establishes a pilot project to increase the transparency of the Western Area Power Administration’s (WAPA) costs, rates, and other financial and operational dealings for utility ratepayers and taxpayers. Patrick Ledger, CEO of the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, welcomed the transparency and accountability promoted by this bill in light of the recent trend of increased utility rates.

With better information broken down in key components – and with a historical perspective – customers can have a better dialogue with [WAPA],” Ledger said.This is perhaps the most fundamental benefit that the transparency legislation offers.”

Click here to view full witness testimony.

BILLS-114hr1830ih
Share