June 20, 2019

A Revelation of Really Ignorant Newspaper Editorial Boards

Still whining like spoiled brat children, the Editorial Board of the Portland Press Herald Newspaper continues to moan about how unfair it was that members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) and the Maine Warden Service (MWS) participated in the recent anti human, bear referendum as a means of providing facts and data about what bear management was like. They lost and so they want to change the rules. What else is knew. God forbid that we should have informed voters.

Aside from the fact that the written text of the editorial makes little sense, on the one hand complains that it wasn’t right for employees to do this while in the next breath vows that little should be done to stop this unfair, in their eyes, practice. Fake compromise.

Utilizing the old and worn out technique of “comparison” shopping, the paper first attempts to equate the participation of state employees – in uniform…gasp – to pornography. If you call them out on it they will simply say they were making a point that a judge, who has nothing to do with the bear referendum, claimed they would recognize pornography when they saw it. Consider that for a moment. This reveals a poor judge and one that seems to be part of a promotion campaign by the Press Herald as being a good thing that a judge administers justice, via the judicial branch, by his or her perception of what should and shouldn’t be, based on their own moral standards.

Whether it is right or wrong, in your opinion, that the Editorial Board invoked the comparison of pornography, matters very little because the words are written and the damage done. The state of Maine now employees pornographic professionals according to the Portland Press Herald.

Equating the recognition of pornography by a judge in 1964 to actions by members of the MDIFW and MWS to provide facts about bear management, the Board says that they see no difference in that any judge should be able to see the two issues as the same.

We feel the same way about the involvement of state agencies and their employees in political campaigns. Sometimes it doesn’t bother us; other times it does. When does it go too far? It’s hard to know exactly where to draw the line, but we know it when we see it.

Evidently the Editorial Board has recognized pornographic equivalencies between one judge’s moral or immoral perception of pornography and one judge’s interpretation of Maine law that it is not illegal for the MDIFW to do what it did during this bear referendum. Voters need to be informed but those promoting the referendum wanted to censor MDFIW and MWS because the facts didn’t agree with their propaganda.

Other than having their own media platform to preach from, what is it the Editorial Board wants? I think they want their cake and eat it too.

We think officials should give their expert opinion and individuals should exercise their free speech rights. But as Justice Stewart said, this was not that – or at least it didn’t look like that.

What we saw appeared to be the enormous power of state government wielded against a group of citizens who were calling for a change in state law.

This is nothing but sour grapes from a bunch of misinformed and not informed losers who want to be able to exercise their rights so long as they can win with them. If they can’t, then they want to change the rules.

Surely if the Department of Environmental Protection was challenged through referendum by an out of state group with no interest in Maine government affairs, voters would want to know facts about the issue and whether or not the current administration supports or opposes the effort and why.

I see it as typical childish behavior, the result of not getting your way. It’s also irresponsible and unprofessional to attempt to smear the reputations of the MDIFW and the MWS by equating their activities to that of the promoters of pornography. Then, after accomplishing what they really set out to do, they attempted to paint themselves as some sort of reasonable and moderate compromisers; above the common fray.

But because what they did was so far from the norm, we think the Legislature should not go too far in its reaction. Just as we don’t want to see state employees getting too involved in political campaigns, we also don’t want them to be barred from participating. There is room for a happy medium, and the fact that this has not been a problem in the past should remind people that it might not need such a stringent solution.

The real issue here is that animal rights and environmental left-wing perverts lost their attempt to destroy all things normal. This began to reveal itself when the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sued the state in the middle of the campaign in order to stop MDIFW and the MWS from doing what they should have been doing – educating the public.

Some attempted to hide behind the issue of transparency in costs to the state but that proved itself to not be the driving force in the lawsuit, nor is it the driving force behind efforts such as the Press Herald smearing the MDIFW and MWS. They don’t want transparency. They want an end to hunting, trapping and fishing. They will persist until they get it. After all, if a brat bangs his head on the floor until blood is drawn, any parent will give in.

Share

Opening One’s Mouth and Removing All Doubt

There’s an old saying attributed to Abraham Lincoln where he said, “It is better to remain silent and thought of a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” And it was H.L. Menken who said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public.”

But alas, where doth the blame lie and to which action should one point a finger?

Recently in a Bangor, Maine newspaper, a person had published his “opinion” and comment about the recent bear hunting referendum, sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, to effectively end bear hunting. While some are licking their wounds and others beating their chests in triumph, some just don’t get it.

I think it was humorist/comedian Tim Sample who got a laugh when he said that some people not only don’t have a clue, they don’t even suspect.

This man with an opinion had a complaint that the referendum was worded wrong and suggested, “Was it malice aforethought or just stupidity?” At issue was that he believed the use of the word “or” in the referendum was in error. In part the referendum read, “An Act To Prohibit the Use of Dogs, Bait or Traps When Hunting Bears Except….”(emphasis added) The writer wanted to know if the referendum had passed, who would have had the authority to decide which method of bear hunting would be banned.

I seldom would come to the support of any government official, however, I have my doubts that the person(s) who drafted the wording acted with “malice aforethought.” And I know it wasn’t stupidity but it might have been ignorance.

I’m no English writing expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. But it appears to me that the use of the word “or” in the context of this referendum is used in the collective sense. In other words, had the item been written something like this: To Prohibit Fred Brown the use of Dogs, Bait OR Traps…. then his assumption that somebody would have to decide which method would be banned. In the case of the actual referendum, the use of nouns and pronouns are in the collective sense, whether directly stated or inferred and thus the use of the word “or” then “collects” all three items, i.e. dogs, bait and traps, and then effectively becomes one item.

It is often said that stupidity can’t be corrected but ignorance can. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Stupidity is seeing no need to have knowledge. Or better yet, they don’t even suspect.

In this case, the writer was ignorant of the proper uses of nouns, pronouns and verbs, but was really stupid to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper in order to “open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

Share

Sierra Club Maine Refuses to Take Position on Bear Referendum

“In the end, the executive committee agreed that, without a chapter wildlife expert, we just didn’t have the resources or expertise to take a responsible position as an organization on this difficult issue,” says Chapter Co-Chair Becky Bartovics.<<<Read More>>>

TenFootPole

Share

Anti-Hunting Group’s Actions Carry a High Cost for MEDIFW & Maine’s Economy

Press Release from Save Maine’s Bear Hunt:

Augusta, Maine- In a shocking move, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting has decided to appeal a recent decision to deny a temporary restraining order that sought to muzzle the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife from informing the public about the risks behind Question 1.

“Justice Wheeler’s decision could not have been more definitive, noting that statutory language explicitly directs the Department to advocate its positions regarding bear management,” said James Cote, Campaign Manager for the Save Maine’s Bear Hunt/NO on 1 Campaign. “This is nothing more than frivolous court filing to generate headlines. They didn’t get their way last Friday in court, so they’ve decided to drag our incredibly experienced professionals at MEDIFW through the mud. I think Maine people will see right through that type of Beltway political strategy.”

The irony is that while the Washington DC -financed Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting objects to the use of any taxpayer dollars connected with Question 1, the endless lawsuits and motions and requests for information have cost the department tens of thousands of dollars and countless labor hours.

“The information that the proponents have requested consists of tens of thousands of files that is taking the Department well over 500 hours to sort through,” explained Cote. “And all of this is nothing more than a fishing expedition in a fading hope they will find useful information to attack Maine’s bear experts.”

If the public is concerned about the money being spent on this campaign, all eyes should be on Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting. More than 98 percent of their money is coming from the Humane Society of the United States in Washington DC, the organization that is trying to buy this election based on emotion, not facts, to further their national anti-hunting agenda.

“The money being spent by HSUS to buy this election is unprecedented and insulting. They are spending millions to eliminate the most effective methods of controlling our bear population and threatening hundreds of jobs and small businesses— almost $53 million in economic impact,” said Cote. “We don’t think Maine voters will let a Washington DC special interest group buy this election. Vote No on Question 1.”

Share

Changing Demographics in Maine Bear Referendum

The Times Record newspaper is saying that the Humane Society of the United States, in a radio ad, is saying that the Times Record supports the bear referendum, Question One. The newspaper says this is due to an error of placing a news article in the editorial section of their paper. The Editorial Staff are setting the record straight that they do not support Question One.

It’s important for us to point out — despite the continued use of our paper’s name in the propaganda campaign — that we are not endorsing the ban.

But more importantly, according to polling information provided by the Times Record, opposition to Question One has grown.

A more recent poll, conducted with 441 likely voters at the end of September, showed that 53 percent of them opposed the ban, 41 percent supported it and 6 percent were undecided. The newspaper article stated the poll had a 4.4 percent margin of error.

I would like to point out that polls are a worthless instrument as far as revealing the actual intent of voters. Polls are rigged and always have been. Polls are used ONLY to influence public opinion, mostly because people think polls tell them facts and they don’t.

The bottom line is to get educated about the issue and make your decision based upon facts. Stop trusting the media, polls and campaign rhetoric.

LincolnFool

Share

Maine Bear Referendum Show – Bear Whisperer

Share

Liars Behind Bear Referendum Whining About IFW Opposing It

“It is legal for state employees to speak out on ballot issues, according to the Maine Attorney General’s Office. But political observers say it’s unusual for a department that receives funding from a state to play an advocacy role in a ballot measure. The IFW campaign also is complicated by the fact that some of the wardens also work as hunting guides.”<<<Read More>>>

Seriously! Maybe it’s inappropriate that the Humane Society of the United States, deceives the public in order to confiscate money from them to pay their big salaries and pay off lawsuit debts. Maybe it’s inappropriate that every media outlet in Maine is inundated with the non factual talking points provided by the Humane Society of the United States. Maybe it’s inappropriate that the Humane Society of the United States, Wildlife Alliance of Maine and all the totalitarian socialist supporters believe it is their right to force the rest of the world to follow along with their perverted animal perspectives. Maybe it’s inappropriate that many of those actively promoting this referendum and raising money for that purpose, are also owners, managers and members of animal rights, humanistic, socialistic, totalitarian organizations that will profit from the campaign and the results of a win in this campaign.

Odd isn’t it? Here we are discussing whether or not it is ethical that the agency that manages Maine’s black bears, and all other wildlife, funded by about 7% from Maine public money, should be presenting scientific facts that would put their position as bear managers in a difficult situation, and never one word about the unethical lies being perpetuated by the Humane Society of the United States, et. al. and any benefits they might get out of this.

Just what is appropriate?

It’s a great commentary on the condition of our society.

Share

Olson’s Trappers Weekend Reveals Huge Support Against Question One

“On Saturday at trapper and fur trader Neil Olson’s 38th annual New England Trappers Weekend in Bethel, large signs were just about everywhere urging the few thousand participants to defeat the referendum. Additionally, the Maine Trappers Association was holding a 50/50 raffle and auction with all proceeds going to fight the referendum.

Many trappers view the referendum as an attack on their right to hunt and on deeply steeped hunting traditions.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Missed Bear Debate? Available Now Online

If you were unable to catch the live stream of the bear referendum debate hosted by WGME-TV and Bangor Daily News, all six parts are available for viewing on the WGME website.

Share

Sold-Out Sportsmen’s Banquet Shows Determination of Maine Sportsmen to Win in November

On Saturday, August 9th, sportsmen from across New England gathered in Augusta to raise money to defeat an anti-bear hunting initiative set for the November ballot. In all, 1,100 people packed the Augusta Civic Center to raise money to defeat Question 1, which would ban bear hunting using bait, dogs, and traps.

Nick Pinizzotto, president and CEO of U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA), knew the night was going to be special when he saw the size of the crowd waiting for the doors to open. Scheduled to be a featured speaker at the Save Maine’s Bear Hunt Super Banquet, Pinizzotto saw hundreds of men and women eager to get inside the hall to save their right to hunt.<<<Read More>>>

Share