May 27, 2015

If You Can’t Destroy Hunting at the Ballot Box, Try it This Way

New Hampshire’s proposal to ban all chocolate as hunting bait after four bears died last year has stirred intense debate between hunters who say the ban is an overreaction and those who say the risk of chocolate poisoning is too great.<<<Read More>>>

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

At $300 Per Hour, New Hampshire Can Devise a Bobcat Lottery

The State of New Hampshire is considering the possibility of creating a lottery in which to administer a prescribed number of bobcat hunting and/or trapping permits. According to WMUR.com, the New Hampshire fish and game department calculates, “It would require about 54 staff hours or roughly $16,000, including all benefits to get the lottery and hunt off.”

My math tells me that equates to just a couple dollars shy of $300 per hour (which includes benefits). Maybe this better tells us what is wrong with fish and game departments everywhere.

USSA Foundation Joins Lynx Lawsuit to Protect Maine Trappers

Columbus, OH –(Ammoland.com)- On Friday, April 3, 2015, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and the Maine Trappers Association filed to intervene in a lawsuit in Maine brought by the animal rights group, Friends of Animals.

The suit aims to strip the state of Maine of its Incidental Take Permit (ITP), which allows for a limited number of Canada lynx to be caught in traps without the state, or individual trappers, being held liable under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Without this protection, every time a lynx was accidentally caught in a legal trap, the trapper could face federal ESA penalties.

Canada lynx, which are listed as a threatened species in the U.S. due to fragmented populations, are abundant just north of the border in Canada. In fact, there are many who believe that the lynx populations should be removed from the ESA altogether.<<<Read More>>>

“Egregious” Letter to the Editor

A recent Letter to the Editor in a Portland, Maine newspaper, called hunting practices “egregious.” Egregious is defined as, “outstandingly bad; shocking.” The same can be said for letters to the editor of newspapers that are outstandingly bad at relating facts, exemplifying truth and presenting non emotional realities of real life in the forests and our backyards.

This particular letter states: “the use of dogs and snares, are cruel and unnecessary methods in hunting bear.”

Snares are as humane as it can get. The wildlife managers all across America use snares for capturing bears, and other wildlife, for wildlife research. The reason this is done is because the work and collection of data can be done without harming the animal. Non thinking people project human emotions and human feelings onto animals believing there is no difference between the two species. They have effectively been brainwashed.

I am wondering if this letter writer ever considered how bears, elk, deer, moose and many, many other species “feel” when wild dogs (wolves and coyotes) run these animals to death? Have they ever considered this reality? By their way of not thinking, shouldn’t we then propose a bill to prohibit the chasing of wild animals by wild dogs? After all, it must be inhumane. Animals are just like human beings aren’t they? And if that is so, then why isn’t their a law against inhumane killing of one animal upon another?

It must also be inhumane to allow wildlife, like bears to go untouched; allow nature, the cruel bitch that she can be, provide her “balance” by utilizing disease, starvation and cannibalism to place population densities in severe ups and downs.

The letter also states: “Time and again, any effort to improve the humane treatment of our wildlife has been thwarted by members of the Inland Wildlife and Fisheries Committee…” The author’s perverted ideas of what is “humane treatment of our wildlife” is simply balderdash of emotional nonsense never substantiated by fact.

The insanity that has gripped this nation is actually what is egregious. The very thought that humans are now programmed to go about destroying my right to self determination because of perverted religious quackery of placing human elements on animals is beyond egregious. It can only be described as hatred toward a fellow human being. And we know from whence comes hatred.

And the hatred is so intense that the blindness prohibits the reality that their insane practices results in the destruction of other wildlife as I’ve described above. It also breeds scarcity. Scarcity breeds more hate and greed, sickness, oppression and destitution. The insanity is that the truth cannot be seen and thus their destruction becomes self.

V. Paul Reynolds: Lynx ITP “Doesn’t Pass Straight Face Test”

“If you applied the Florida panther math to the Maine lynx, trappers would be permitted to accidentally take 50 to 100 lynx a year and not impact the population appreciably. And yet, USFWS, in collaboration with Maine’s state wildlife managers, is restricting Maine’s incidental take to .006 percent of the lynx population – not over a year – but over 15 years! Really now, does this pass the straight face test?”<<<Read More>>>

Fur Market Tanking

Five years ago, its pelt would have fetched $50. These days, it will likely yield half that.
Economic forces including market slowdowns in big fur-buying countries like Russia, China and South Korea, as well as a continuing trend toward distaste for fur as a result of animal welfare concerns, make Cogill among a dwindling number of trappers catching fur-bearing beasts in the wild.<<<Read More>>>

On Maine’s Legislative Slate: An Act to Ban Bear Trapping and Hounding

According a tidbit found in the Portland Press Herald, a bill may be proposed in the Maine Legislature that would ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs.

…lawmakers also are gearing up for potentially contentious policy fights over environmental and outdoor issues, including a measure to ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs following the failure of a referendum in November that also sought to ban bear baiting.

I’ve not researched this bill and I don’t even know what the language is contained in the proposal. It would seem that the chances of a passage of a bill of this kind should be slim to none. The people of Maine spoke quiet clearly in November at the polls and let everyone know that they really preferred for wildlife management to be handled by those at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

I am hoping the bill never sees the floor of the Legislature.

Trapping is Cruel? Nah! Reading Drivel From the Clueless is Cruel

Some need to get a life. I’ve overused that saying, attributed to more than one person, including the Bible, that it’s better to keep your mouth shut causing people to wonder if you are stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or, how about the comment once made by Alice von Hildebrand: “God has set limit’s on man’s intelligence, none on his stupidity.”

A letter to the editor in a Maine newspaper about trapping describes the act as such: “held there struggling in pain and fear until it dies”, “execute it at point blank range”, “an indifference to life”, “condones suffering”.

Since 1980 there have been 1.3 billion unborn babies murdered; “held there struggling in pain and fear”, “executed at point blank range”, and yes, obviously there’s an “indifference to life” and those billions of people “condone suffering.” So where’s the outrage?

Perverse!

Lynx Lawsuit: “Bureaucratic Interests, Emotions and Propaganda Fantasies

In a recent article written by James Beers, he said that one of the difficulties that exists today that seriously hampers the ability to make informed decisions about wildlife management was “a matter of bureaucratic interests, emotions and propaganda fantasies.”

Friend of Animals (FOA), another radical and perverted group that fails to have any comprehension of the realities of wild animal existence and fights with every breath to protect all animals at all costs, even the destruction of other species, having nothing but “emotions and propaganda fantasies” to operate with, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because the Service issued the state of Maine and Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for Canada lynx.

FOA, calling those involved in the fur bearing business, “killers involved in this murderous industry,” without providing substantiation claimed that, “Canada lynx are expected to decline by 65 percent in the next two decades.” Much like global warming models predict I would surmise.

It’s all a money making ploy by the radicals who deliberately avoid the truth in the matter as it does little to pad their bank accounts.

The ITP was issued and within two months, administration of the ITP was necessary to mitigate the loss of lynx, subsequently resulting in the closing of trapping in lynx protected habitat in Maine. The only thing not working right here is there’s no money going into the bank accounts and pockets of FOA.

ITP For Canada Lynx in Maine “Not Needed”

V. Paul Reynolds’ weekly article in the Sun Journal states: “The hard facts suggest that there is no need for either this state-mandated trapping hiatus or even federal protection of the Canada lynx, in Maine at least.

The state-mandated trapping hiatus is action taken by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) after two Canada lynx were “incidentally” trapped and killed shortly after the signing of the Incidental Take Permit (ITP).

I would suppose the take away lesson here might be that people should be careful what they wish for. Or, as the old saying goes, better the devil that you know than the devil you don’t. And hind site is always 20/20.

Having said all that, were things all that bad BEFORE the negotiated ITP? Maine was regulated by trapping in Canada lynx territories under a consent agreement from a previous court ruling. That ruling stated that Maine would abide by this agreement until such time as the state had negotiated an ITP that would help in protecting it from lawsuits from accidentally “taking” a lynx. And so, how did that work out?

Reynolds says an ITP isn’t needed but says so in that the lynx population in Maine is sufficiently high enough – perhaps too high – that the animal doesn’t need the kinds of protections being thrust upon it and the draconian limitations put on outdoor sportsmen. But that is rational talk. We can’t have none of that.

The Courts don’t help. When we thought some sort of progress was being made in dealing with endangered species, once again we find an ignorant and agenda-driven judge who ruled on gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region saying that wolves cannot be taken off the Endangered Species Act list of protected animals until wolves have fully recovered throughout all of its historic range. So, substitute Canada lynx where the word wolf is found and you see why Canada lynx in Maine will likely not be “delisted” until lynx are prevalent across all of the historic range in the Lower 48 states – and that will never happened.

We are now back to a point of asking ourselves why a state should even bother to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about issues such as the Canada lynx? Everyone makes all these claims about how we need to avoid lawsuits because they cost so much money. How much money do you think it cost the state of Maine and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to hammer out a faulty agreement, the result of which has effectively shut down trapping in the state of Maine? Perhaps Maine should have been more aggressive to fight against the original proposal to list the Canada lynx as a threatened species. We’re supposed to learn from history.

Maybe Maine doesn’t need an Incidental Take Permit. Maybe it never should have taken the time to get one. Maybe we sportsmen should never have pressured MDIFW to get a permit, thinking it would somehow bring trapping back to “normal.” There were even those who believed an ITP would restore snaring. All utter nonsense – some of which could easily have been predicted and others not.

Maine received word recently that the Feds are going to look into the status of the lynx in Maine and then make a decision to either, do nothing, increase protections or decrease protections. Any bets? Mostly Kabuki Theater. If the USFWS doesn’t have the resources to draft a lynx recovery plan, why should we think they have the resources to effectively evaluate the realities of lynx in Maine? If the USFWS decides to decrease lynx protections, lawsuits will follow, and as usual USFWS will not appeal them because they know they can’t win an appeal and/or they don’t want to win.

And, if the USFWS should even take steps to delist the lynx, 15 years from now, as that is how long the process will take, lawsuits will prevent this action. This has been the modus operandi over the past 40 years with endangered species, to such a point that now the push back has resulted in acts of Congress to effect any change from such nonsense.

It would appear that if this is how the environmentalists want to conduct business then states and sportsmen who believe in responsible, scientific wildlife management will have to take up the same reins as the environmentalists and demand Congressional action to do what the Endangered Species Act fails miserably in doing.

V. Paul Reynolds is correct. Maine doesn’t need an ITP and it doesn’t need the Feds, forced by environmentalists, destroying all things normal and endangering other species by falsely listing the Canada lynx in Maine as a threatened species. But the process will not accomplish what is needed. Maine might as well start now and start banging on their Congressional representatives’ doors demanding action to resolve this issue.