August 25, 2019

Witnesses Testify National Park Service Management Plans Severely Limit Access, Harm Local Economy, Endanger Jobs

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 27, 2012 – Today, the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a joint legislative and oversight hearing on H.R. 4094, the “Preserving Access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area Act,” and, “Access Denied: Turning Away Visitors to National Parks.”

“Although today we focused on two examples, Biscayne National Park in Florida and Cape Hatteras in North Carolina, these overly restrictive policies show signs of developing into a nation-wide problem. This is a continuation of anti-visitation policies driven by the Obama Administration that will undercut the tourism industry, hurt local businesses, and destroy jobs,” said Subcommittee Chairman Rob Bishop (UT-01).

The National Park Service has severely limited access to Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area through the implementation of a restrictive management plan and environmental lawsuits from activist environmental groups.

H.R. 4094, sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones, would overturn a final rule implemented by the National Park Service as well as a 2008 U.S. Court Consent Decree by reinstituting the Park Service’s 2007 Interim Management Strategy to govern visitor access and species protection at Cape Hatteras. The legislation will restore visitor’s access to Cape Hatteras while also ensuring the protection of local wildlife and its habitat. Re-opening this Congressionally designated “recreation area” will stimulate the Island’s recreation-dependent economy and foster job creation.

“This bill is about jobs and taxpayers’ right to access the recreational areas they own. H.R. 4094 will restore balance and common sense Park Service management in Cape Hatteras National Recreational Area. It will reverse the significant job loss and economic decline that Hatteras Island has experienced since access was cut off to many of the most popular areas of the seashore,” said Rep. Walter B. Jones (NC-03).

The National Park Service is pushing a new management plan at Biscayne National Park that will eliminate access to over 10,000 acres of sport fishing waters and dissuade visitation to other areas of the park despite strong objections from the surrounding community and opposition by the world renowned scientists of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Fishing, boating, diving and other recreational activities within the Park drive the local economy and support hundreds of jobs. Prohibiting these activities and restricting Park access will negatively impact the local economy, dissuade tourism and cause job loss.

“Biscayne National Park is part of the heritage of our community and is of great significance to many South Florida families. My intent is to help preserve the unique culture surrounding South Florida’s water-centered way of life, while also protecting our environment and maintaining access,” said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18).

“No one cares more about Biscayne National Park than Floridians and those who utilize the park. Restricting access should be a last resort after all other alternatives have been exhausted. It is my hope that we can all work together on a plan that both protects the Park and remains accessible for the public to enjoy,” said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-21).

Share

Cutting Off Supply Lines to Animal Rights’ Intrusions and Tax Dollar Heists

Just yesterday a reader at the Black Bear Blog left a comment pertaining to an article I had written last week entitled, “Relationships With Fish and Game Departments at All Time Low“. Part of that comment said:

When the Allies won World War II, they didn’t just fight the battle on the front lines, they attacked the enemy’s ability to fight the war by bombing their factories. They went after their supply lines. It’s the same with fighting the insane policies of the far left. You can’t just try to fight the battle on the front lines of public opinion; you have to go after their supply lines. And their biggest supply line is how they’ve corrupted the environmental movement and then use it to fund themselves to the tune of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

Those of us who are knowledgeable about the antics of the animal rights organizations, have a good understanding of how, through dishonesty and abuse, these groups have successfully funded their activities. Perhaps what isn’t discussed enough is the fact that many of these same organizations have propitiously infiltrated every level of local, state and federal governmental departments and hijacked those agencies in order to perpetuate their agendas and funding.

In the article linked to above, I wrote: “Fish and game departments have become giant government agencies with too many powers and a focus that caters to environmentalism and animal rights and animal protection.” (emboldening added) What is it within these departments that has created this shift away from sportsmen and onto environmentalism, animal rights and animal protection? It’s mostly due to the infiltration of members of these organizations at every level and every agency.

Also last week I posted information about how APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) was looking to contract with someone or agency that could provide Internet spying on anyone suspected of any kind of ill-defined animal abuse. If you read the entire contract proposal, not only will you discover how radical it is, but that it smells terribly of something spawned by animal rights radical groups such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to name just one.

On December 20, 2011, I posted a press release that was sent out by the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance about the troubles with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/APHIS having been permeated by HSUS and as a result were setting the department’s agenda and policy in dealing with animal rights issues.

Moran noted in his Nov. 2, 2011 comments that he discovered U.S. Department of Agriculture memos authorizing the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to hold a forum—at taxpayer expense—on animal rights and agriculture. In fact, another memorandum noted that a prior meeting with HSUS and USDA staffers was held to “set the agenda” for the upcoming forum. Moran noted in his Senate testimony that USDA met with HSUS despite it being an animal rights organization and “no friend to rural America, farmers or ranchers.”

It’s vitally important to the information in this article to read the USSA press release as it contains several documented accounts of how HSUS has, like a toxic gas, permeated the USDA. It appears the method of operation is to first sue the USDA and then use that leverage to gain access and perpetuate their agendas.

Another example of HSUS’ annexing of the USDA/APHIS is found in an article sent to me by a reader. It explains how one person, Sarah Conant, before becoming a lawyer, went to work for HSUS as an animal protection litigator. She continued her work with HSUS through receiving her Bar license and after five short years was hired by the USDA/APHIS.

These are only tiny examples of what is taking place. These are the supply lines that need to be broken. We cannot allow the HSUS to be the indoctrination springboard where well-bred minions become agents within our governmental departments; the end result is the death and destruction of individual rights, freedom and this nation.

The easy part is exposing the evil. Cutting off the supply lines is a monumental task.

Tom Remington

Share

Nanny State Run Amuck: Bloomberg Bans Food Donations in New York City

Food Might Be Salty or Too High in Calories, City Explains

Washington, D.C. – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration is now banning all food being offered to the city’s homeless shelters. New York City’s bureaucrats have become so singularly focused on what people eat, says the National Center for Public Policy Research, that they’ve lost their common sense.

“So much for serving the homeless: The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term ‘food police’ to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless,” writes Jeff Stier, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division, in an op-ed in Monday’s New York Post.

“In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services has recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans,” writes Stier.

New York City DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond told the National Center’s Stier that the complete ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on “improving nutrition for all New Yorkers.”

As Stier writes, “A new inter-agency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.”

“Diamond insists that the institutional vendors hired by the shelters serve food that meets the rules but also tastes good; it just isn’t too salty, ” writes Stier. “So, according to the commissioner, the homeless really don’t need any donated food.”

Stier’s research reveals that there’s more to the story.

“For over a decade, Glenn Richter and his wife Lenore have led a team of food-delivery volunteers from Ohab Zedek, the Upper West Side orthodox congregation. They’ve brought freshly cooked, nutrient-rich surplus foods from synagogue events to homeless facilities in the neighborhood,” explains Stier. ” The practice of donating such surplus food to homeless shelters is common among houses of worship in the city,” he writes in the op-ed.

Mr. Richter’s experience suggests Commissioner Diamond and the Bloomberg administration are out of touch.

“[Glenn Richter] says the beneficiaries — many of them senior citizens recovering from drug and alcohol abuse — have always been appreciative of the treats he and other OZ members bring. It’s not just that the donations offer an enjoyable addition to the ‘official’ low-salt fare; knowing that the food comes from volunteers and from community members warms their hearts, not just their stomachs,” writes Stier.

“So you can imagine Richter’s consternation last month when employees at a local shelter turned away food he brought from a bar-mitzvah,” says Stier in the piece.

Richter, Stier writes, “is a former city Housing Authority employee, while his wife spent 35 years as a South Bronx public school teacher, so they’re no strangers to bureaucracy and poverty. But an exasperated Richter says, ‘this level of micromanagement is stunning.'”

Stier is an expert on how the nanny state is undermining the credibility of the public health community. Among his many articles: “The Happy Meal Ban Flops” for National Review Online, “Obama Healthcare: Government, Heal Thyself,” for the Los Angeles Times and “Regulating Junk Food Advertising” for Townhall.com.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank with over 100,000 recent supporters. Contributions to it are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Why Government Will Never Assure Your Access To Resources for Hunting, Trapping and Fishing

We must somehow learn to ween ourselves from the hind teat of government. Through the indoctrination and brainwashing forcefully imposed on us from birth, we grow up always looking to government for answers to our problems. When is the last time any government agency, law or program rightfully solved anyone’s problems?

Very few states in this Union have any kind of constitutional or statute law that protects the citizens and their right to make use of the natural resources for hunting, trapping and fishing. To my knowledge, the following states have constitutional amendments that supposedly guarantee the citizens of these states the unobstructed right to hunt: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. Nearly all of these amendments were voted on and approved by the people.

There has been a push of late for states to enshrine their rights to hunting, trapping and fishing but does such a move actually accomplish what people are led to believe it will, i.e. an actual constitutional protection, a guarantee that this right shall never be infringed?

Hunters in states like Idaho are trying to bet their guarantee on a state code. One of the difficulties not being realized by these outdoor sportsmen is that they are not looking at the entire code. It’s not necessarily that they are cherry picking or taking the code out of context, it is that I believe they are victims of exactly what the authors and signers of the code intended. In other words the code was written intentionally to confuse, while at the same time sounding as though it was accomplishing what some of the voters asked for. This is a common tactic of all untrustworthy politicians and another reason none of them can be trusted. This should also bolster the resolve that we the people should not rely on government to protect us from anything.

In Idaho, this code debate began with the announcement by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) that a “Wildlife Summit” was being planned for August of 2012.

Much of the initial outrage occurred when the sportsmen discovered that many anti-hunting, environmental, and non governmental agencies were invited to the Summit. While I certainly agree that anti-hunting and all environmental groups should have no say in fish and game management because of their agendas, whether as individuals or groups, these people do have a right to attend such a meeting.

There are other issues that surround the intent of the Summit. One of them being that some members of the IDFG Commission seem to be indicating that the goal of the Summit is to rewrite the mission of IDFG.

In an email I received from one Idaho citizen who attended a recent IDFG meeting, I was told that one member of the Commission said that these anti-hunting, non governmental organizations (NGO), have a good representation of Idaho sportsmen. The person told the commissioner that he was trying to change Idaho Code 36-103.

This may actually be true, at least from the perspective of someone working very diligently to preserve the hunting heritage of their state but the bottom line is the codes that are written and what they actually say and just as importantly how they would be interpreted in a court of law, determines everything.

In many of the discussions I have read about this issue, the sportsmen seem intent on tossing out the first half of Idaho Code 36-103 , which reads:

36-103. Wildlife property of state — Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.

The thrust of the focus by hunters appears to be directed at: “provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”

This is done with disregard for the rest of the WORDS written into the code by lawyers. Before we take a bit of a closer look at this law, I’ll post here the entire statute:

36-103. Wildlife property of state — Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.
(b) Commission to Administer Policy. Because conditions are changing and in changing affect the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state’s policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code. The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

Lawyers and a court of law can rip this Code to shreds and resulting rulings will leave us all wondering how that was done. While it’s easy as hunters to focus on those highlighted words above, even though the authors may have intended that to be your focus, all the other words have meaning too. To a lawyer and a judge, multiple meanings.

In brief, Part A above does not guarantee that the IDFG or the state of Idaho must grow game populations so that everyone in Idaho who wants to hunt, trap and fish can do so and for all the species in which seasons are provided. As a matter of fact, the Code says that the only time taking of game will be permitted is when there is enough wildlife to go around. However, that “taking” can be limited by any means the IDFG sees fit.

Part B then goes on to give the fish and game commission the authority to administer this code. As much as all of us would love to believe the fish and game commission doesn’t have the right to “change Idaho Code 36-103”, there’s nothing really in that code that guarantees Idaho citizens a right to hunt, trap and fish. What some members of the commission might be interested in doing by inviting anti-hunting groups to the summit, is to build support to change the mission statement of IDFG.

One would think that with the intent of Idaho Code 36-103, i.e to guarantee Idaho citizens the right to hunt, trap and fish, a step up to a constitutional amendment would be an easy task. That didn’t happen though did it? Perhaps now you are getting a better understanding as to why. Who’s your friend? Who’s on your side?

My intent here was not to dissect Idaho Code but to make a broader statement and support with facts on the ground. The truth is not even a constitutional amendment guarantees outdoor sportsmen any right to hunt, fish or trap. It may be perhaps the best chance at achieving such but is far from a blank check guarantee. And for those states with some kind of statute, like Idaho, no code or statute is protected from change, especially those with an agenda.

Most amendments to constitutions are non specific. In states that have such constitutional changes, the amendment may read that the citizens of that state have a right to hunt, trap and fish and that it may go so far as to require the fish and game departments to “perpetuate” wild game for hunting opportunities for the citizens. This is so non specific it leaves the door wide open to interpretation. Forget the intent of the amendment. Intent means nothing when dealing with law makers with an agenda.

Consider the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently in two Supreme Court rulings it was determined that Washington, D.C. (Heller vs. District of Columbia), and Chicago (NRA vs. City of Chicago) could not prohibit citizens from owning a handgun. While the Second Amendment is suppose to guarantee American citizens a right to keep and bear arms, we see that even with a Supreme Court ruling, the citizens of Washington, D.C. and Chicago do not have a right to keep and bear arms as they wish.

The reality of it is, we deal with many things most of us are completely unaware of. In our reliance on government to protect us, we refuse to believe that our constitutions and laws will not protect us and do what we have been told they will do. Even Supreme Court rulings are not enough to force cities to comply. They would rather take their chances in more courts with more lawsuits because that’s where their friends are. Surely if the rulings of the Supreme Court mean nothing to the governments of local cities, why should we rest that our state governments care one way or the other about our rights to hunt, trap and fish?

And while you are sleeping, changes to our laws are taking place that we know nothing about. For instance, in Maine, I was researching to find out what the state statutes were regarding trapping. You can find the details here, but what I discovered was that during a federally mandated “recodification” process, your laws can and are being changed and you may not know it.

We are told by our government that recodification of all states’ laws will be done every ten years. The intent of this action is supposed to be to clear up redundancies and other issues that make deciphering and interpreting the laws clearer and easier. What I discovered was someone took this opportunity to rewrite the laws the way they wanted them done. BTW, a new round of recodification is supposed to take place in 2013. Pay attention!

With a legislature either deaf and dumb to the responsibilities of the job or in on the illegal action, it is a snap to pass these recodified laws. After all, it’s just a housekeeping measure, right?

We must stop depending on government for anything. They cannot be trusted nor will they protect you and I from anything. To stop this would be monumental because it would require a complete makeover that begins in our schools and homes. At the ballot box we can work harder at getting the right people elected but it doesn’t end there. We need watch dog groups that will follow everything each law maker does and make sure the public knows and understands. This of course will never happen because there aren’t enough people who care.

Tom Remington

Share

NRA’s “Trigger the Vote” Campaign

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

Agenda 21 For Dummies

Share

Protesting the Censorship of SOPA and PIPA

Today many websites are trying different techniques to draw attention to the SOFA and PIPA bills before the House and Senate that would, if passed, effectively censor and force the shutdown of hundreds of thousands of websites, probably including favorites like YouTube and why not Facebook.

As you attempt to view this post and all other posts on the home page of this site, you will see black CENSOR bars placed over much of the text. Hover over any of the black boxes and click on it. A window will appear with links to educate you about SOPA and PIPA, how to contact your Representative, as well as provide opportunity to Twitter.

Unless you prefer to leave the black boxes up, once you have clicked on a black box, all of them will be gone, even the next time you visit the site.

I got this idea from a press release sent to me by Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research. They are also participating in the censorship protest.

Tom Remington

Share

Ron Paul On His Personal Faith

I am not endorsing any candidate, including Ron Paul. I share this only because this is the first time I’ve heard him express his personal faith in God.

Share

Ceding Away Rights in the Name of Public Safety

My good friends at the National Center for Public Policy Research put out a press release today about the state of Illinois’ seeming hypocrisy and double standards when applying law mandating the use and/or need of producing government identification.

As a whole, I support the policies and efforts of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) but today I have to take issue with some of the argument used by the Center’s Project 21 representative, Stacey Swimp.

At issue is the fact that the state of Illinois now requires government endorsed identification when purchasing certain products, among them drain cleaner. Swimp’s beef comes from the fact that Illinois has rejected previous bills attempting to require some kind of photo identification in order to vote.

“If people must provide a government-issued ID to unclog their drains, they certainly should do the same for the very important task of selecting their elected leaders.”

The point is well taken and I might have left it at that and made some small remark wondering why it is even necessary to require anybody to produce a government-approved ID card to buy Drano?

To bolster the argument, Swimp later says the following:

“Having been certified as a pesticide applicator in the past and knowing the harm they can inflict if used maliciously, I understand why some might want to have a means of identifying who obtains them and for what reasons. The same would apply to guns, fertilizers, over-the-counter medications that can make illicit drugs and — in this case — acids and other dangerous chemicals. So it’s only logical that people who have these concerns would also want similar identification rules to prevent vote fraud.”

I might understand that “some” people might want to regulate breathing of humans but that is not a valid reason to require them to obtain a government permit to do so. It’s easy to spout off about those “reasonable” regulations because we “understand why some”, but how is any of this constitutional and what kind of trouble has this country gotten itself into because we cede away our rights in the name of public safety because “some people might want”?

I’m not suggesting that I think Swimp is advocating for tougher regulations on buying Drano, guns, fertilizers, etc. I have no idea of his position on these issues. It’s simply the fact that he is using defective logic to make a point.

Isn’t it about time that people in this country begin demanding back their rights? Please show me in the constitution where it is “reasonable” that I cede rights. And while your there show me where it is required that I obtain a government approved ID card to buy and sell.

What’s next? The mark of the beast in order that anyone can buy or sell? You keep giving away your freedom by swallowing the Kool-Aid about public safety and national security and we won’t even be having this conversation.

Tom Remington

Share