August 25, 2019

Maine Reps Shaw and Libby: Facts About Bears, Management, and Referendum

“So the questions arises, who would you rather believe — Maine wildlife experts who have studied and maintained the health of the bear population for 40 years, or the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States, which boasts that its ultimate goal is the elimination of all hunting, of everything, from big game down to barnyard varmints.”

“These facts evidently don’t matter to a group called Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, which is pushing for passage of the referendum. In a campaign advertisement the group declared, “States that opted to restore fair chase to bear hunting have continued to maintain relatively stable bear populations.” That, of course, is a flat-out untruth.”<<<Read More>>>

HowStupid

Share

Maine Warden Service Opposes Question 1

Share

Sportman’s Alliance of Maine Will Match Donations for Save Maine’s Bear Hunt

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine has announced it will match donations to the Save Maine’s Bear Hunt from now until October 15, 2014. <<<Read More>>>

Share

The Realities of Limiting Bear Management Tools

Driving down the freeway in the wrong direction, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and most of their non thinking, brainwashed followers, are working feverishly to stop hunting. In Maine they’ve chosen another attempt at ending hunting bears with bait, hounds and traps. And in their campaign to deceitfully convince the Maine voter that bears shouldn’t be baited, hounded or trapped, the radicals continue to present wrong information that in states where they have banned these hunting methods, bear populations have remained stable. HSUS will never convince voters about THEIR idea of ethics and hunting. HSUS is moving toward a head-on collision.

Once headed in the wrong direction, some states are looking to reverse the trend from when they banned baiting or hounding or trapping bears as they cannot control the bear populations in their states.

Let’s peek into what’s going on in other places now having to deal with bear problems.

In British Columbia officials there have been forced to kill 240 black bears between April and August of this year alone.

Since April 2014 there have been 7,314 calls to Officers about black bears and they have attended 1,062 of those calls. That number is much higher than the number received for grizzly bear sightings in the province, there were 229 calls made over the past four months, with 46 of them attended by officers.

In Wisconsin, officials there have stepped up the number of bear permits to issue all in an effort to reduce bear populations in hopes of mitigating conflicts between bears and humans.

The DNR says the bear population continues to rise in northwestern Wisconsin. That means more conflicts between bears and people in areas that become increasingly residential. Now the DNR is increasing the number of bear hunting permits to decrease those conflicts.

We also discover from a report filed by Deirdre Fleming, in Maine’s Portland Press Herald, that in at least two states that banned or limited the methods of hunting bears, not only has the bear populations risen, in Massachusetts the population has gone through the roof.

In Oregon, where voters approved a measure to ban the use of baits and hounds in bear hunting in 1994, the black bear population has increased by 40 percent. In Massachusetts, where a ballot measure to ban hounds and traps in bear hunts passed in 1996, the bear population has skyrocketed by 700 percent.

As traffic passes by HSUS going the wrong way, it doesn’t deter them and their followers of spewing false information. In a report I filed a couple of days ago, we saw where one follower condemned the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) because they didn’t have a specific study to prove that baiting bears plays no role in the health and habits of black bears. As was pointed out in comments left by readers, MDIFW has been studying bears in Maine for 40 years. During that time they have collected perhaps more data on bears than any other entity. One would think that in 40 years biologists would have taken notice of changes in population growth and average bear weights that don’t coincide with proven science of weight and reproduction variances due to natural conditions.

The fact is now very clear to voters. HSUS has no data to support their claims about black bear management. And now, the realities of what is taking place in state after state across this nation, where limits were put on methods of harvesting bears, is hitting home destroying the claims made by HSUS and their blind mice followers. All HSUS has left is arguing hunting ethics and that has never been a successful argument to end hunting.

Perhaps if HSUS wants to discuss ethics, they should look in the mirror and see themselves as being extremely unethical in the methods of conning the public out of money to pay the inflated salaries and benefit packages going to HSUS staff and administration.

Share

One Person’s Dispute Over Scientific Fact Does Not a Scientific Fact Make

God, I’m confused this morning. Thank God, we can still submit letters to editors of local and national newspapers. And, thank God, he gave me a brain to understand nonsense and avoid it.

In another letter to the editor of the Bangor Daily News, a writer states that a statement made by representatives of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) that baiting bears for short periods of time over many years in a row, has no measurable impact on bear populations. The writer claims the statement was, “nothing more than an untested hypothesis.” And to prove that this is an “untested hypothesis”, the writer uses an untested hypothesis and states that if a department that most believe operates under the pretext of scientific approach can’t produce a scientific “study” the claim is no good. There! That’s settled.

Let’s not consider a 40-year ongoing bear study by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries as a “scientific study.” What nonsense!

Share

When Bears Get Accustomed to Eating Donuts

BearEatingDonutsKeyboard

Share

Just Say No to Welfare Bears

BearDreamingofDonutsConfucius once said, “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.” And yet again George Bernard Shaw once said, “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” What’s even worse is being ignorant and having the confidence to show it. Mark Twain said that you only need two things in life to be a success; “ignorance and confidence.” That is why for many who will read anything that I write will claim I am the one who is ignorant and their truth is the truth that will lead them to successes beyond their wildest dreams….with confidence. Wildest, yes, but never anything that they dreamed of.

I don’t believe it takes a political expert, whatever the hell that is, to come to the conclusion that the majority of people who would sell their souls to Satan for animal welfare, are members of the same group that like to call themselves liberal and progressive. And thus would support and defend the welfare state; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Let’s gander for a moment into animal welfare as it may pertain to black bears. In reality, it matters not the species of plant or animal. Environmentalists preach the “natural” and “balanced” way of doing things. These leftist, animal welfare, non thinkers harp to anyone who will listen that if man would just butt out of the equation of ecosystem (whatever that is) health and well-being, all would be Kumbaya.

Even after those who fabricated the theory of “natural balance” have since withdrew that claim, based of course on “best available science” (snickering here), the animal welfare activist and promoter of “let nature take its course and everything will be alright,” will cling confidently to their old-found supposition in order to show their own ignorance, confidently, but only to those intelligent enough to know the difference. For the majority, it has no meaning and that’s why it continues.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and their grand followers of confident ignoramuses, are proudly showing the world that they want the citizens of Maine, and other states, to stop treating bears inhumanely – hunters shoot them and eat them. GASP! The same flock of parrots preach ethics. I’m reminded of the words of Jesus (that would be the real, one and only, Son of God, the Creator of all things) when He said to the mass of confident, ignoramuses, eager to throw stones at and kill a woman because she was a prostitute, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”(John 8:7) My thoughts here are that Jesus didn’t think the stone-throwing sinners were exercising good ethics.

Obviously, and it is a shame I have to explain this, I have my doubts that anyone mixed up with HSUS, is much interested in “stoning” a bear hunter, but then again……

Somewhere lost in this progressive paradigm of animal protection to extremes, people have determined to make humans second class citizens. Animals come first. And yet, out of one corner of their mouths they confidently believe themselves to be compassionate humans toward other humans by offering somebody’s money (tax dollars), not their own, to go to support humans who say they can’t take care of themselves. Can’t take care of themselves? Later.

A reader sent me the following statement found on the Mainers For Fair Bear Hunting Facebook page. By the way there is nothing to do with Mainers in this group of Totalitarians as the entire group is funded by out-of-state interests and the HSUS.

The update pertains to a gathering of confident, ignorant, hypocrites to bring attention to the onset of Maine’s bear hunting season. In the update it says, “For 30 days, bears are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.” There are confident outcries among the masses. I’m sure the gatherers will be chanting, “No more welfare for bears!”

Perhaps I should take that statement and just change three words. I’ll delete “30 days” and replace it with “years” and change “bears” to “people.” The statement would read, “For years, people are trained to visit these sites for free food, seemingly with no strings attached.”

On the one hand, God created man and gave him the brains and ability to take care of himself, i.e. work, grow and find food, shelter, etc. On the other hand, God created the beasts of field in order that man could have dominion over those beast, to care for and perpetuate growth for people to eat and use all the resources the animals can offer.

The confident cloud dwellers of the HSUS and other environmentalist movement groups demand that animals should be left alone, in their “natural” state (although their own ignorance don’t know what that means). Doing so will bring justice to the animal kingdom.

However, a man, a human, should have more ability to take care of himself than a damned bear and yet HSUS and others believe bears should be left to their own devices, without man’s interference (of course only when that interference involves hunting, fishing and trapping). Where is the outcry from those confident protestors toward those who spend years training others to “visit these sites for free food (health care, education, money and shelter), seemingly with no strings attached.”? What the hell is “natural” about that?

Isn’t there something seriously wrong with this?

Share

Maine’s Kennebec Journal Editor Corrects False Accusation About HSUS

In what can only be described as unprecedented, the editor of the Kennebec Journal corrects a statement made by a person in a Letter to the Editor promoting a “yes” vote on Question One of Maine’s upcoming November referendum vote. In that letter, the writer accuses a previous letter writer(Carroll Ware) of “made up stuff out of whole cloth” when Ware said that Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), wanted to end all hunting.

The editor adds a correction after the Letter to the Editor that reads: “Editor’s note: In 1991, when he was CEO of the Fund for Animals, a radical anti-hunting organization, Pacelle was quoted by The Associated Press as saying, “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.””

The other information contained in this letter about the results of bear baiting is “made up stuff out of whole cloth.”

Share

Maine IFW Enhances Website With Information Concerning Bear Referendum

Press Release from Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

AUGUSTA, Maine — Voters who want to learn more about Maine’s black bears and Question 1 on the November ballot should visit the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife web page, which features a new section designed to inform citizens about the upcoming bear referendum and why the department is opposed to Question 1. You can visit the website at www.mefishwildlife.com.

“No one care’s more about Maine’s black bears than Maine’s bear biologists—they have dedicated their careers to protecting Maine’s bear population,” said IFW Wildlife Division Director Judy Camuso. “They are hired by the state to protect and care for Maine’s bear population, and we want to let voters know what we have learned from over 40 years of research and why we are opposed to the referendum.”

The site includes research authored by Maine’s bear biologists, videos focused on Maine’s black bear management and bear biology, infographics, biographic summaries, pictures of field research, a presentation on Maine’s bear management program and other information regarding the upcoming referendum.

The site is full of information about Maine’s black bears. For instance, just over 50 years ago, black bears were relegated to no more than a nuisance animal, with the state paying a bounty to those who killed black bears. Now bears are a valued game animal to hunters and non-hunters alike.

“We want to provide Maine’s voters with facts about Maine black bears so they have the information they need before they cast their vote,” said Camuso. “Maine’s biologists are some of the most experienced and respected in North America. Their research has been utilized in bear management programs throughout the continent.”

Web users should visit the site often, as it will be updated with new videos and infographics about Maine’s black bears on a weekly basis. The videos feature Maine wildlife biologists and game wardens and focus on information learned from Maine’s long-running research program, why the department opposes the referendum and why these hunting methods are important to control the bear population.

“We felt it was important that voters understand the ramifications of this referendum,” said Camuso. “Maine’s biologists and game wardens are opposed to this referendum, and this website clearly shows why we are opposed and why this referendum is bad for Maine.”

Share

Case Challenges California Mountain Lion Import Ban

“Despite a continuing increase in mountain lion and human encounters in California since the passage of Prop. 117 – including fatalities – attempts to reverse the ban legislatively have been unsuccessful. And perhaps the most hypocritical aspect of the mountain lion hunting ban is that lions continue to be managed (i.e. killed) by wildlife officers and public safety personnel in numbers equal to or greater than some neighboring states where hunting them is legal – it’s just not being done by legal, licensed hunters.

Last week, Safari Club International (SCI) filed an interesting lawsuit in federal court that has the potential to chip away portions of the prohibitions put in place by Prop. 117 and could perhaps clear the way for future challenges.”<<<Read More>>>

Share