August 14, 2020

The Dark Side Opposing Maine’s Bear Hunting

“It’s important to understand that this antibear hunting initiative does not come from Maine citizens. Not even remotely. Although a very small handful of Maine antis are involved, the initiative is entirely the effort of HSUS. Last March, working with a Washington, D.C. consultant, they created a website called “Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting.” Although a disclaimer on the site’s homepage reads, “Paid for with regulated funds by the committee of Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, PO Box 15367, Portland, Maine,” in reality not one Maine person was involved. The campaign finance report reveals that in actuality, 99% of the funds came from HSUS. The site claims to have raised $85,000, but the report shows only $881 has been contributed by anyone other than HSUS.

This tactic of creating false sites, used by activists and corporations to create the illusion of grassroots support for their agenda, is sarcastically called “Astroturf” by the electronic community.”<<<Read More>>>


New Yorks Bear Population “Out of Control”

Rational thought: Since New York and other states banned bear trapping, bear hounding and hunting bears using bait, bear populations have grown significantly and in this article that growth is described as “out of control.” Perhaps it is time to bring back those hunting methods in order to maintain a reasonable and healthy population of bears and provide better public safety.

Irrational thought: Hunting bears causes the population to grow bigger and it’s inhumane for humans to kill bears. This problem in New York can be best handled by banning bee hives.

From the Daily Mail:

“The black bear population in the southern wildlife district (Catskill Region) is considered by DEC and beekeepers to be “out of control.” During the past three decades it has tripled and is estimated now to be at about 1,500 (in the Catskills). Biologists encouraged hunting of bears, but the hunt has not harvested enough numbers to keep up with the increase in bear population in either in N.Y. or N.J. 85 percent of the members of the Catskill Mtn. Bee Club have suffered damage to their hives by bears. New beekeepers who are just starting to keep a few hives usually do not expect to suffer bear damage as they “have never seen a bear on their property.” Those who ignore the advice to set up an electric fence are likely to be visited by bears just as soon as they have a hive full of delicious smelling brood and honey.”<<<Read More>>>


Maine Bear Campaign Video


Maine: Gut Bears? This is NO April Fools’ Joke

BearTableComputerAre not the arguments, protests, discussions, talking points, lies, misinformation and deliberate attempts to mislead voters in Maine getting a bit too confusing? Not that I would recommended it to anyone, but if you visit the Facebook page for the Wildlife Alliance of Maine, it appears those supporting the radical Humane Society of the United States’ effort to force communistic lifestyles onto the rest of us, cannot rationally recognize nor explain the difference between feeding wildlife and baiting bears. Being that the majority of readers to this website have a higher comprehension than a second grader, I won’t bother to explain the obvious. (Maybe we need Captain Obvious?)

It seems that nationwide, once bear hunting is forbidden by the communist-Marxist on the left, or is it the Fascist on the right, that the best way to “manage” bear populations is with bear proof garbage cans. These items are really “in” this year.

But maybe bear proof garbage cans can’t quite take care of hungry bears competing for a limited supply of food, so states are training officials on how to deal with bear attacks. In case you don’t bother to follow the link, this is to train officers how to deal with bear attacks on humans. Why would they need to do that?

Take a moment here and go check your bear proof garbage can. And when you get back, take a few minutes to go outside and take down your bird feeder. That always works to stop bears from attacking……well, attacking anything I guess.

And remember, always, always, always, listen to your government officials. They know everything about bears and their habits. After all, I bet all of them have experience with being attacked by a bear. Or, maybe not. It seems that those officials say bear attacks are so rare…….well, how rare are they? I dunno, but they are so rare we need to bear proof garbage cans, to take down our bird feeders, and train officers in how to deal with bear attacks. (Don’t forget looking big and making loud noises.)

But the real solution may rest in something quite remarkable. Well, two things really as they do go hand in hand, along with the people who utilize this. If bears get out of control, which is rare I know and make sure you are prepared and your local law enforcement and first responders are prepared for bear mouth to mouth, seek out a bear Reiki specialist.

In case some of you are wondering, it is April Fool’s Day but this is not an April Fool’s Day prank. I know that’s hard to believe.

If you don’t get like the Rolling Stones’ satisfaction, you can hire or better yet, become an animal whisperer. I heard bears get super aroused when under the influence of being “whispered to” in their teeny, weenie ears. Contrary to the aggressive nature of bad human men, the bear becomes quite docile when you blow warm breath lightly into their audio cavities. For sure, a combination of bear reiki and whispering will handle any hungry or aggressive bears. But just in case, and I know it’s rare, bring in that bird feeder, check your bear proof garbage cans and make sure your local sheriff knows how to deal with bear attacks…….did I say “just in case?”

Note: Some may laugh off this notion of communicating with animals but consider this. Cass Sunstein, Obama’s former Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, claims that animals have all the same rights as any useless human being (I assume that includes politicians), including that animals deserve the right to legal representation in courts of law. Consider the advantages of having a bear whisperer, first having given the bear Reiki therapy before the hearing, to listen to and be able to relay to the court the true feelings of the bear. Dang! Ain’t American great?

Did I ever tell you the story about going to a local historical society meeting in rural Maine one evening and was treated to a guest speaker who was a bug whisperer? No? Maybe another day.

But seriously folks. This is all true. Follow the links. I’m not fooling! And that’s the absurdity of this nonsense to take away from wildlife officials the tools they need to control animal populations. Just today I posted another article about how New York and Massachusetts, having once banned the implementation of tools needed to control bear populations are now trying to reverse that mistake.

And to completely confuse those who can’t distinguish between baiting an animal to kill it and feeding one for pleasure, this guy can’t understand why bears much prefer natural food over, “fresh beef tallow, sunflower seeds, pastries, chocolate-covered cherries and bacon grease.”

It just appears that HSUS, in their second round of attempting to flex their totalitarian muscle, have waited too long. Last time was ten years ago. In other states where the environMENTALISTS were successful in banning bear hunting, the chickens have come home to roost. State officials are now seeing that allowing the ban was a big mistake and now they are scrambling to reverse the bad decisions in order to deal with the mess.


Another State Clamoring to “Manage” Bears With Bait Hunting

While Maine deals with the lies perpetuated by the likes of extreme human-hating groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), to ban bear hunting with bait, trapping and hound hunting, Massachusetts joins New York in proposing to lift the bans on bear baiting because……wait for it… it comes……there’s too many bears in conflict with humans. Have we heard that before somewhere?

From the

“Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) Executive Director Jim Wallace does a great job regularly updating sportsmen about important legislation. He recently noted that H.809 — An Act Relative to the Hunting of Bear, filed by Rep. Todd Smola, would repeal the prohibition on the use of bait and hounds for hunting bear. This law was the result of the infamous 1996 referendum Question 1. As bear populations continue to increase and begin to spread beyond the traditional rural settings, it is essential that the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife be allowed to manage them. The most effective population management tool is hunting, and baiting bear is the most effective means in fairly urban areas. Baiting allows the hunter to harvest the bear in a safe and controlled manner.”


A Reset Button To Hopes and Utopian Dreams

Maine wildlife managers are trying to figure out how they plan to manage the black bear population if this referendum, manufactured by idealistic dreamers and haters of humans, passes in November. Instead of voting against humanity maybe they can just press their “Reset” button and be whisked away to new hopes and Utopian dreams.

All together now:

Kumbaya my lord, Kumbaya, Kumbaya, Kumbaya!



Rhetorical Nonsense From Anti Bear Hunters

There were a couple of editorial comments found in the Bangor Daily News on March 13 where a certain explanation should be made concerning opinions and rhetoric.

The first opinion comment said that if the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) thinks “to feed them [bear] jelly doughnuts, have dogs treeing them, and use traps” is scientific, then he would have to question MDIFW’s “science or lack of same.”

I suppose depending upon a person’s definition of “scientific”, I don’t think Randy Cross (MDIFW bear biologist) or anyone else at the department thinks there is much “science” in how bears get harvested; no more than the “science” behind how deer or moose or any other game animal gets harvested. How the harvest takes place is through the selection of tools, combined with public safety assessments, needed to keep a population of game species within healthy and manageable numbers. Determining what the healthy populations in specific regions of the state, aided by all of the ongoing bear studies and those from other education and research facilities, is SCIENCE!

The second opinionated comment is nothing more than rhetorical parroting rooted in ignorance. First was this opinion, of which the author is certainly entitled to: “cruel, unsporting, unnecessary practices of baiting, trapping and hounding.” Most people do not agree with this statement.

The rest are merely lies that cannot be substantiated and mostly founded in lies being perpetuated by media and the head of this upcoming referendum, the Humane Society of the United States.

The lies are:

1. “How can anyone believe that leaving a 300-pound bear stuck in a 2½-inch ankle snare for a day of extreme pain is acceptable?”
Answer: This person is completely ignorant of anything to do with trapping a bear.

2. “…that letting a pack of dogs attack a mama bear and her cubs is acceptable?”
Answer: This person is completely ignorant of anything to do with bear hunting with hounds.

3. “When bear baiting was banned in Washington, Oregon and Colorado, the bear population stabilized.”
Answer: Not true. This is unproven and unsubstantiated claims made by the anti bear hunting zealots in those regions. The truth is that now that a considerable amount of time has elapsed since the banning of hounds, bear numbers are growing and is posing problems in certain areas. These problems come and go depending upon circumstances on the ground, i.e. weather, availability of natural food, etc. There exist similar problems now with mountain lions after hounding of lions was banned.

4. “Interestingly, in Maine, the bear population began to increase shortly after bear baiting began.”
Answer: False! Once upon a time, the black bear in Maine was considered nothing more than a nuisance. In fact, for many years, even dating back to the 1700s, bounties were readily paid to hunters and trappers for killing as many bears as they could. These bounties lasted in some regions until as late as the 1940s, perhaps 1950s. It was after the establishment of a state fish and game department and the decision to begin seeing bears as a game animal, did the population of bears begin to increase.

Today, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife conducts extensive bear studies and has become the envy of many in North America. I believe that if this person did a little work instead of repeating the nonsense they have been told, they would also discover that it was a point in bear management that the MDIFW realized there were getting to be too many bears. (Note to the first commenter: MDIFW used science to determine there were too many bears and how many presented problems.) It was not too long after that baiting bears was implemented for the purpose of increasing the bear harvest in order to keep bears healthy in their habitats and not become a problem socially, i.e. public safety.

5. “A diet of doughnuts, pizza and grease fattens female bears, leading to more cubs in the den.”
Answer: Not true. As I have requested from others who make such claims, “Show me the science.” There is none. There are many theories but science has never been able to prove this claim about the specificity of effects on bears from eating donuts. The fact is, if there are any natural effects on bears in contributing the how many cubs will be born, the number of influencing factors are so great, no one item can be held accountable for any of the claims being made about baiting bears.

Besides, if there are 35,000 estimated bears in Maine, and that number is more than likely a low estimate, how many of those bears are the recipients of Dunkin’ Donuts?

6. “this type of junk-food diet can cause bears’ teeth to rot.”
Answer: Let’s see the science on this, where a few days out of the year, eating junk food causes teeth to rot in bears.

Another fallacy that I’m surprised this writer did not bring up when writing about how bear populations “stabilized” out West. That is the lie about how the number of bear hunting licenses increased. The lie being perpetuated here is that prior to the banning of bear hounding, there was not a single “bear hunting license.” With the new law the fish and game agencies created a new “bear hunting license.” Therefore, the number of bear hunting license sales did increase from zero to how ever many licenses were sold. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good hateful, un-American agenda.

I’d like to end this article by bringing your attention back to the second opinion writer’s comment about Gandhi: “in Mahatma Gandhi’s words: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.””

I am assuming this person finds this nation’s way of treating our animals as unacceptable from their perspective of what “moral progress” is. And just exactly how, in their weak minds, should animals be treated?

I would also like to point out something that a man, whom many people think was a great man, perhaps a greater man than Gandhi in some people’s eyes, did as a statesman and representative of the United States while abroad many years ago.

Thomas Jefferson was tasked with traveling to Europe to find business and trade partners after the Revolutionary War. As he traveled from town to town seeking reliable, decent, trustworthy and yes, perhaps even “moral[ly] progress[ive]” people, he had a routine before attempting to conduct any business with residents of any town he went to in which he had never been.

Jefferson would scope the town to seek out the highest vantage point; often a church steeple. He would climb to the top and survey the village and the landscape. Once he accomplished that, he would walk about the village observing the people going about their normal, everyday routines.

And with all of this, I suppose in much the same way as Gandhi stood judge and jury over a nation by how it treated it’s animals, Jefferson had a judgement of his own in which he never varied from. If he determined any town was mostly full of people who treated their animals better than the humans, he left that town refusing to engage in any business with them on the conclusion that such people were of poor character and unreliable.

Do you suppose Gandhi and Jefferson would have gotten along?



Online Poll About Maine Bear Hunting

John Holyoke has an online poll question about supporting the anti bear, anti human, anti hunting fall referendum created by The Humane Society of the United States.


New York Proposes Bear Trapping, Baiting and Hounding to Reduce Bear Populations

Under a proposed plan, New York would become the second state in the nation where it is legal to trap a bear, after Maine. The new rules also would allow for the use of dogs and bait to attract bears during hunting, both of which are now illegal. The state will increase the hunting season in the Catskills to reduce the bear population there and allow for killing of females and bears younger than a year in other regions. State officials will also promote bear hunting as a cost-effective way to reduce the population.<<<Read More>>>


Maine’s Bear Management: 39 Years of Study vs. Rhetoric

From an article found on the MPBN website:

“To be honest, there’s no way we can harvest enough bears without these tools,” Cross says.[Randy Cross, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) bear biologist. Cross was referencing the upcoming referendum that, if successful, would strip the MDIFW of any tools needed to properly manage a healthy black bear population.

Darryl DeJoy, who runs the Wildlife Alliance of Maine(WAM), says: “I would argue that we have created an artificial bear feeding season, August and September, where in years of low mast crops and other bear food, the bears are supplemented with this highly unhealthy diet of literally millions of pounds of junk food.”

What we have here is this. For at least 39 years, the MDIFW has conducted scientific bear studies. Most people would agree that Maine’s bear study and management program is the best there is. Some might even argue the best worldwide. We know that Maine is the envy of many states with black bears and I’m sure those states rely on findings from the Maine studies to assist them in their bear management programs.

On the flip side of this, we have the Humane Society of the United States(HSUS), known anti hunting, anti human people, and a clone of which would be Darryl DeJoy. Like an echo chamber they repeat their rhetoric about supplemental feeding programs creating an “unhealthy diet” and “millions of pounds”, all of which is creating a population increase of black bears in the state.

Where is the proof? Where are the scientific studies (real science not “new science scientism) to support this claim? What does HSUS and the WAM have to support their claims? The answer is none and therefore nothing they say or offer can be considered by anyone with a brain as useful information.

IF HSUS and WAM really believe in what they are saying and their claims to be concerned about the health and “inhumane” treatment of black bears is so damned important to them, then why haven’t they produced real science to prove their claim? Put their money where their fat mouths are?

So, Maine people need to decide. Should they listen to those biologists and bear management people at MDIFW with a program of 39 years of bear studies, or a bunch of radical human haters with nothing but rhetoric to support their money-making con game?