September 18, 2019

SAM-Sponsored Bill to Limit Restrictions on IFW to be Heard Tuesday

This SAM bill will be heard this Tuesday in the IF&W committee in the Cross State Office building next to the capitol. This bill will protect IF&W biologists, sportsmen and the department if the Humane Society of the United States ever qualifies another referendum ballot initiative related to wildlife management. At the hearing I will lay out the realities and truth about what can happen when we can’t effectively manage wildlife.

Photo: The attached photo is of a mailer used by the HSUS during the Maine campaign in 2014. The bears in the photo are Grizzlies. Maine has never had Grizzlies!!

1:00 PM Room 206 PUBLIC HEARING L.D. 1593 An Act To Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

An Act To Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows:
Sec. 1. 12 MRSA §§10111 and 10112 are enacted to read:
§ 10111. Contingency wildlife management provisions
When a ballot measure for a direct initiative of legislation as described in Title 21-A, chapter 11 is approved that reduces or alters wildlife management methods or management options available to the department, the commissioner shall implement the provisions of this section in relation to any fish or wildlife species significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved measure. For purposes of this section, “animal” means a fish or wildlife species that is significantly affected directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure.

1. Expenditures prohibited. The commissioner may not expend any revenues on the animal damage control pursuant to section 10053, subsection 8 or any other nuisance animal control activities in excess of the amount expended in the fiscal year prior to the effective date of the ballot measure for a direct initiative of legislation as described in Title 21-A, chapter 11, adjusted annually for inflation.

2. Sterilization program. The commissioner may not establish or implement a sterilization program to control the population of an animal.

3. Waste. The department may not dispose of any animal in a manner that constitutes waste under section 11224 and may not dispose of on state-owned land any animal killed by the department.

4. Landowner depredation program. The commissioner shall develop a landowner depredation program that allows a landowner or landowner’s agent to take an animal for purposes of depredation on that landowner’s property. The program must include, but is not limited to, the following.

A. Except as provided in paragraph B, a landowner or landowner’s agent may not retain, in whole or in part, more than 2 animals of the same species at any one time.

B. If a landowner or landowner’s agent exceeds the limit established in paragraph A, the landowner or the landowner’s agent must donate any animal in excess to the Hunters for the Hungry program under section 10108 or, if the animal is not suitable for donation under the program, the department shall assist the landowner in the proper disposal of the animal but may not authorize the landowner to retain the animal or any part of the animal beyond the limit established in paragraph A.

The commissioner shall report annually to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters on the landowner depredation program, including, but not limited to, the number of animals killed pursuant to this subsection.
The commissioner shall adopt rules to implement this section. Rules adopted pursuant to this section are major substantive rules as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A.
§ 10112. Ballot measure; impact analysis
Within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition for a direct initiative of legislation as described in Title 21-A, chapter 11 that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the measure to the Legislature, the commissioner shall conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report the commissioner’s analysis to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters. The analysis must include, but is not limited to, a biological and ecological impact assessment, the economic impact to the department and how the department will need to adjust its management practices to maintain a healthy wildlife population.

SUMMARY
This bill establishes contingent wildlife management provisions that become effective when a ballot measure for a direct initiative of legislation is approved that reduces wildlife management methods available to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. The provisions of this bill apply only to the animals that are significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure. The bill does the following.
1. It places a cap on the revenue the Commissioner of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife may expend to control animals causing damage or any other nuisance animals to the level spent in the fiscal year prior to the effective date of the direct initiative of legislation.
2. It prohibits the commissioner from establishing or implementing a sterilization program to control the population of an animal.
3. It provides that the department may not dispose of an animal in a manner that would constitute waste under existing statute and prohibits the department from disposing of on state-owned land an animal killed by the department.
4. It requires the commissioner to develop a landowner depredation program that sets a limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner and requires a landowner to donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established by the commissioner to the Hunters for the Hungry program.
5. It also provides that within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to the Legislature, the commissioner must conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report the commissioner’s analysis to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters.
6. It requires the commissioner to report on the landowner depredation program annually to the joint standing committee of the Legislature having jurisdiction over inland fisheries and wildlife matters.

BaitingStinks

Share

Maine: An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

SAMWhen I first heard about this proposal from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I read about it at George Smith’s blog at the Bangor Daily News. After reading his article and his words about the proposal, I began crafting a response. Then I realized much of what was written in the Bangor Daily News, didn’t make a whole lot of sense. I held the article because it put the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine in a bad light unfairly. I decided I would wait until I received a copy of the actual text of the bill proposal. *Note* – The proposal, shown below, is titled as a “Working Draft” so please bear that in mind. Also, a thank you to David Trahan for providing a copy of the proposal.

I will paste the “Working Draft” below, followed by any comments I may have about the text of the bill.

WORKING DRAFT

February 1, 2016

            An Act to Establish a Contingency Wildlife Management Plan

Sec. 1. 12 MRSA § 10111, is enacted to read:

10111.Contingency wildlife management provisions.  In the event an initiated ballot measure is approved that reduces or alters wildlife management methods or management options available to the department, the department shall implement the following management measures in relation to any wildlife or fish species significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved measure.  For purposes of this section, “animal” means a wildlife or fish species that is significantly affected directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure.

1.Nuisance animal expenditures.  The department may not expend any revenues on the control of animals causing damage pursuant to section 10053, subsection 8 or any other nuisance animal control activities in excess of the amount spent in the Fiscal Year prior to the effective date of the initiated ballot measure adjusted every year thereafter for inflation.

2. Relocation. The department must restrict the relocation of any animal causing damage or a nuisance animal to areas where the carry capacity for that species has not been met.

3. Sterilization program. The department may not establish or implement a sterilization program to control the population of an animal.

4. Waste application. The department may not dispose of any animal in a manner that would constitute waste under section 11224 and may not dispose of any animal killed by the department on state-owned land. 

5. Landowner depredation program.  The department shall develop by rule a landowner depredation program that includes but is not limited to the following.

A. A limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner or the landowner’s agent but may not exceed the limit allowed by licensed hunters.

B. A requirement that a landowner must donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established pursuant to paragraph A, to the Hunters for the Hungry program under section 10108, subsection 8.  If the animal is not suitable for donation under that program, the department shall assist landowner in the proper disposal of the animal but may not authorize the landowner to retain the animal or any part of the animal beyond the limit established in paragraph A.

The department shall report to the joint standing committee on matters relating to fish and wildlife by January 5 annually on the landowner depredation program including, but not limited to, the number of animals killed pursuant to this subsection.

Rules adopted pursuant to this subsection are major substantive as defined in Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter 2-A. 

6. Impact analysis. Within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to Legislature, the department shall conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report its analysis to the joint standing committee with jurisdiction over fish and wildlife matters. The department’s analysis must include, but is not limited to, a biological and ecological impact assessment, the economic impact to the department and  how the department will need to adjust its management practices to maintain a healthy wildlife population.  

 

SUMMARY

This bill establishes contingent wildlife management provisions that become effective when an initiated ballot measure is approved that reduces wildlife management methods available to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.  The provisions of this bill only apply to the animals that are significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the approved ballot measure.  Those provisions include the following.

  1. It places a cap on the revenue the department may expend to control nuisance animals to the level spent in the Fiscal Year prior to the effective date of the initiated ballot measure.
  2. It prohibits the department from relocating a nuisance animal to areas where the carry capacity for that species has not been met.
  3. It prohibits the department from establishing or implementing a sterilization program to control the population of an affected animal.
  4. It provides that the department may not dispose of animal in a manner that would constitute waste under existing statute and prohibits the department from disposing of an animal killed by the department on state-owned land.
  5. It requires the department to develop a landowner depredation program that sets a limit on the number of animals that may be retained by the landowner and requires a landowner to donate any animal taken from that landowner’s land for depredation purposes exceeding the limit established by the department to the Hunters for the Hungry program.
  6. It provides that within 90 days after the Secretary of State verifies a petition that proposes to reduce or alter wildlife management methods or management options available to the department and sends the proposed measure to Legislature, the department must conduct an impact assessment on that measure and report its analysis to the joint standing committee with jurisdiction over fish and wildlife matters.
  7. It requires the department to report on the landowner depredation program by January 5 annually to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

My Comments:

10111 – About the only comment I have about this section is that it involves the use of undefined words. It is asking that any approved ballot measure that “reduces or alters” wildlife management options….and, “significantly affected.” While it is difficult to define such use of terms, history should have taught us that these vague terms become a determination made by lawyers and judges – not always in the best interest of everyone or anyone.

Nuisance Animal Expenditures: I have been told that much of the reason for this alternative wildlife management proposal is aimed at limiting wildlife management lawsuits by animal rights groups and environmentalists. I have also been told that it would be another year before any constitutional amendment would be forthcoming – an amendment deemed to help protect Maine citizen’s right/privilege to hunt, fish and trap.  One would have to wonder then, whether or not this proposed legislation might actually be more effective that any of the proposed constitutional amendments I have seen in the past few years. More in a bit.

The key to this “Nuisance Animal Expenditures” can be found in the reference to Maine law 10053, subsection 8 – The coordination of animal damage control functions throughout the State, including supplemental assistance for the control of coyotes and other nuisance wildlife that exceeds normal funding and staffing levels within the department;”

We have to wonder if this section is here in response to last year’s bear referendum, where concern from sportsmen, as well as the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), about the possibility that should the anti hunting referendum pass, uncontrolled bear populations would create a nuisance and thus a cost to the MDIFW. Not being an expert on legalese, I do have to wonder if this can come back and haunt sportsmen and MDIFW.

Relocation: Makes sense that any animals that need to be captured and released only be released in areas where there aren’t too many of the same species already. (Maybe this should be amendment to read that any nuisance animals, big or small, be released in the back yards of those promoting anti-hunting legislation.)

Sterilization Program:  All sterilization programs are not cost effective and don’t work. I have no problem with placing this restriction until such time that science devises better methods – if ever. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that game animals are a resource. Employing any sterilization methods over providing game harvest, should never be approved.

Waste Application: I see this as a real “in-your-face” to the Humane Society of the United States, and other totalitarian animal rights/environmentalists groups in order to suppress the hypocrisy often found with these groups. These organizations are always quick to point out any wanton waste of a wildlife species, while they routinely kill millions, or approve of such, of unwanted cats and dogs each year. This action may not put the responsibility directly back on environmentalist, referendum seekers, it would, it seems to me, require petitioners to provide contingency plans on what to do with the wildlife that needs disposing of due to uncontrolled populations.

Landowner Depredation Program: This is mostly self-explanatory. However, I would like to point out here that the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) should tread lightly here in that they do not anger and/or alienate private land owners. If wildlife is creating a nuisance to landowners, i.e. crop damage, etc. we must protect that landowners right to protect his property. If the writing of this depredation program limits a landowner’s ability to protect his property, then a can of worms will be opened – the result being a losing proposition for everyone.

A landowner should have his protected right, under the guidance of state officials, to deal with nuisance wildlife that is a threat to his/her property. Placing a limit as to how many animals that landowner can keep and/or forcing the landowner to give the deer to Hunters for the Hungary (I think this should be worded in a way as to not make Hunters for the Hungry the exclusive feeding program) may not be in the best interest of all in the long term. Sportsmen need the generosity of the landowner to access his land. Pissing them off is counterproductive.

Impact Analysis: – Not a bad idea except MDIFW will complain that they don’t have any money or resources to do this. Readers should probably need to understand as well that any “impact analysis” can be, and most often is, political in nature. In the recent bear hunting referendum, many sportsmen oohed and aahed over MDIFW’s effort to educate the public about the repercussions should this bear hunting referendum pass. Would sportsmen be so quick to pat MDIFW on the back if they had supported this referendum?

Sorry, but I don’t have that kind of faith in government of any kind. I understand why SAM would be calling for such an impact statement, and I certainly do not oppose real scientific management and assessment of wildlife issues. The problem is we don’t very often get that anymore.

We live in a time when a psychopathic society, in love with animals, and educated by psychopaths who aren’t interested in the real scientific process. They are interested in romance biology and other avenues of utter nonsense.

Maine lucked out this time because the MDIFW happened to come down on the side of sportsmen. What will happen next time? What happens when the next governing body of MDIFW believes nature will balance itself out and self-regulate?

It appears that in another year SAM and their associates will endeavor to pass a constitutional amendment – one they think will protect their right to hunt, fish and trap, which will, consequently, limit or eliminate the countless lawsuits Maine faces to destroy hunting, trapping and fishing. Those promoting the amendment shouldn’t get their hopes too high that the state would pass a real effective amendment.

Most amendments that I have read about and followed in my research, end up with a copy-and-paste version of somebody’s idea of a good constitutional amendment. What they end up with is a document that suggests to the states’ fish and wildlife department that they will do everything in their power to provide “opportunities” for people to hunt, fish and trap. As I pointed out the other day, it’s extremely easy to provide an opportunity to hunt. One permit, once a year to hunt a moose is an opportunity.

Historically what happens is fish and wildlife departments take up arms (figuratively of course) against any constitutional amendment that mandates their department to manage game for surplus harvest. This effort provides the maximum game populations so everyone can harvest game, provided of course each department does their job. This is opposed by fish and game departments because they don’t want the mandate pressing down on them.

Is this what Maine sportsmen and Maine voters want? Amendments without that mandate are ineffective.

If this proposal of SAM’s passes, it may actually have more teeth than a constitutional amendment. Why? Because most sportsmen think that an amendment will protect their right to hunt, trap and fish and that it will limit or do away with the lawsuits and ballot initiatives Maine sees on a regular basis. While this is important, they shouldn’t put their faith and trust in government and government agencies. Sportsmen should not just settle for a protection of opportunities. They should demand that the managers build populations for surplus harvest. Otherwise, stop paying their salaries and retirement benefits.

 

Share

Ballot Issue Facts Should Not Be Censored

According to a Bangor Daily News editorial, Rep. Ralph Chapman, D-Brooksville, is sponsoring a bill, LD990, that would prohibit state employees from offering factual information and knowledge about issues surrounding ballot initiatives. This is ridiculous. Instead of voters and taxpayers being able to have an understanding of facts and knowledge from a specific department that might be directly effected by a ballot measure, the only resource voters would have is to be subjected to the propaganda professionals from all sides, including special interest groups. Evidently this is what the sponsor is seeking.

Chapman said that allowing departments to “campaign” on ballot initiatives, “invites corruption” and that he is not clear if the employees are “politicking” and that we have to, “have confidence that government is doing the people’s work.” What about people doing the people’s work?

While Chapman says his proposal would still allow a department to issue an, “impartial factual summary” the people are still then subjected to propaganda. Present law prohibits employees from campaigning for or against a candidate for obvious reasons, but in issues where a ballot initiative is forcing a changing of laws or rules within a department, I think each department should be heard openly and honestly, in the same fashion that the bill’s sponsor campaigned for his own election. Is he suggesting everyone else is corrupt? Is somehow perceived corruption from a government department more corrupt than that of the sides battling over a ballot initiative? That argument makes little sense and is quite dishonest.

Ultimately it is still the responsibility of the voter to decide how they want to vote. Censoring information that a voter needs is denying them access to the true.

The bill proposal states that the department would be allowed to create and distribute an “impartial factual summary” but that summary must, “contains a record of arguments made both for and against the issue.” What’s the point? Such a mandated summary would not necessarily contain real facts about an issue only concocted arguments for and against. Those are a dime a dozen in any referendum.

This proposal is nothing more than another typical government grab of control over the liberties of the voter. People have the right to know. It is their money that creates these agencies. They cannot make the best decisions when information is censored. This government overreach is also a typical maneuver to keep a voter population ignorant.

Maine should reject this bill.

Share

It Should Be Difficult Work to Get a Citizen’s Initiative on a Ballot

And it should be even more difficult for the crooked lawmakers to make laws that have, for the most part, done nothing to make the country a better place. In fact, their work has made it worse. And the vast majority of citizen’s initiatives are nothing more than pitiful attempts by special interest groups to force their preferred lifestyles onto others. ALL LAWMAKING SHOULD BE MADE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT!

A bill proposal in Maine would “close a loophole,” if that is the best way to describe it, that would prevent or limit out-of-state interests forcing their political agendas into referendum votes to change laws in a state they have no stake in. Those opposing the new bill say it would only serve to make it that much more difficult to get an initiative placed on a ballot. That should be considered a good thing when you think about the deep sheep dip states and this country have gotten themselves into by crafting and passing so many laws, there is no such thing as freedom left in a country once referred to as Land of the Free.

David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, describes the amendment being proposed as, “will end this abuse by further defining solicitor of signatures and require ballot initiative coordinators to report all those paid to collect and assist with petitions.”

The opposition says, “The more bureaucratic roadblocks they throw up, the more expensive the process gets and the more it gets limited to special interests.”

Every law reduces the freedom and rights of individuals. Because the world is filled with evil we have come to believe that writing laws will stop that. It doesn’t. Evil persists and it has no preference of sides.

Share

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine – LD176 Testimony

LD176 – A bill proposal to control and limit who can directly work to take signatures for petitions concerning citizen initiatives.

Share

Bill Proposal: Constitutional Carry in Maine

Constitutional Carry
Facts, Thoughts and Cleared-up Misconceptions
By Jeff W. Zimba
Firearms Policy Consultant – Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine

There is an important bill in the 127th Legislature that is really picking up momentum. The higher profile a bill is, the easier it is to misunderstand, due to the amount of “chatter” around it. I would like to take a moment to explain Senator Eric Brakey’s Constitutional Carry bill, LR 280, and help clear up some misconceptions.

First and foremost, this bill would not permit anyone who is prohibited to own or carry a gun today, to do so. This is a simple fact that keeps getting lost in the messaging. As the law stands today, anyone who can legally purchase and own a handgun can place it on their person and carry it. There are 2 methods of carrying a handgun, open carry and concealed carry. To reiterate, anyone who can legally purchase and own a handgun today, can already carry it. The fly in the ointment is, it must remain exposed. The second way to carry is concealed. To conceal a handgun today, requires a permit issued by the issuing authority in the municipality of the applicant’s residence. It is an ineffective and expensive permitting system for several reasons, and since it has nothing to do with purchasing, owning or carrying the handgun, it is considered by many to be unnecessary.<<<Read the Rest>>>

Share

A Bill To Prevent Non Residents Collection of Petition Signatures

For all of you who expressed concern about HSUS trying again. We have been working very hard to see it NEVER happens again. Please share this message from David Trahan and this report he penned everywhere you can. Follow the link, print it, send it to everyone you know, and let’s never be victimized again, by those with agendas and huge expense accounts from other states.
—————–
SAM ALERT
Important SAM Bill Coming Up for Public Hearing

LD 176, An Act To Amend the Law Governing the Gathering of Signatures for Direct Initiatives and People’s Veto Referenda

Veterans and Legal Affairs
Feb 25, 2015, 10:00a State House, Room 437

LD 176 is a SAM bill to address the serious abuse of our petition gathering process by the Washington D.C. based Humane Society of the United States. This bill will stop non-residents from violating our State Constitution’s ban on the use of non-residents to collect signatures during Maine referendums. Below are excerpts from an expose written by SAM Executive Director detailing the abuse. Please forward to as many people as possible and come to the hearing if possible. To read the whole expose, go to: http://www.sportsmansallianceofmaine.info/…/HSUS_Exposed_Fi…

BILL SUMMARY

This bill prohibits persons who are not residents of the State from collecting signatures on a petition for the direct initiative of legislation or a people’s veto referendum and from handling such a petition in any manner. The bill permits persons who are not residents to provide others with information about a petition. The bill requires a person employed by a petition organization to register with the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices and to disclose to the commission information regarding the person’s place of residence, employment history, compensation, +number of signatures gathered in a month and petitions circulated and to wear an identification badge when collecting signatures. The bill requires a petition organization to post a $2,000 bond on a circulator receiving over $2,500 in compensation. The bill makes a violation of any of these provisions a Class E crime.

HSUS Expose Excerpts

“Yet, fully two-thirds (2/3) of the signatures approved for the bear referendum, and probably thousands more, were bought and paid for by PCI Consulting, a professional petition signature collection firm from California.”

Some interesting facts:

“According to Maine Ethics Commission reports, on November 30, 2013, HSUS kicked off their Maine bear referendum petition signature-gathering efforts by reporting a $50,000 check paid for “signature gathering support”.”

“Total paid for signature gathering management – $228,574.00.”

PCI Consulting and HSUS

“PCI Consulting is a professional petition signature collection firm, with a long history of referendum campaigns all over the United States, and with a wide array of wealthy, politically connected clients, ranging from the likes of anti-gun rights billionaire George Soros to organizations advocating the legalization of marijuana. PCI Consulting has worked extensively with HSUS for more than a decade, collecting and managing signature-gathering efforts on other state ballot initiatives.”

Who did PCI Consulting and HSUS hire to collect petition signatures in Maine?

“According to documents supplied by the Secretary of State, and Internet ads paid for by PCI Consulting contractors, PCI and HSUS paid for the signature collection services of several separate groups,”

The Lewiston Team

“Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting and PCI Consulting hired Auburn resident John Michael, a 7-term, ex-State Legislator, to manage the hiring and daily operations of paid signature collectors.”

The Green Party Connection

“State Representative Ben Chipman, Green Party, Portland, is also a professional signature collector and campaign organizer who was deeply involved the effort to collect bear referendum signatures. Chipman collected signatures, and acted as a Notary for petitions. In what can only be described as a potential conflict of interest, he also served in the Legislature when the referendum bill was heard.”

Why did HSUS hire professional out-of-state petitioners?

“Because the bear referendum was not a home grown effort. It was concocted completely in Washington D.C, by HSUS.”

Who Is Blake?

“There is a common name and phone number in the HSUS and Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting ads that solicit non-resident petitioners. That name is Blake, which is his first name; he does not reveal his last name. Using his cell phone number and information collected from the Internet, he can be connected to referendums in Utah (ballot access), and Washington State (universal gun sales background checks). He appears to be a contractor or middleman for PCI Consulting.”

Share

Former Maine Fish and Game Commissioner Proposes Bill to Study Winter Ticks

Sorry for not getting excited over this but this, more than likely, will prove to be nothing more than stealing away Maine taxpayer’s money for post-normal, outcome-based, new-science scientific study that will provide false and agenda-driven results. Maine should save their money and let this one pass. If I look into my crystal ball, I can predict that the results will be that climate change is causing the ticks and we need to give the Government all of our money, while at the same time giving up what rights we have left, to save the planet.

“The legislation would direct the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to conduct a study of the impact of winter ticks on Maine’s moose population, including identifying population problems due to ticks and recommending possible courses of action to address those problems.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Let’s See The Proposed Great Lakes Wolf Bill

THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW! Not really but isn’t that usually the cry we hear when things don’t go the way we have been brainwashed to think they should?

We’ve been hearing about PROPOSED bills that would remove the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act in the Great Lakes region. I’m tired of hearing about all the promises that are going to be in this bill. I’m not that stupid. I’ve been down this lousy road before. Bill titles and false promises get people on all sides revved up and squawking like a gaggle of geese. The reality is all too often that the actual text of the bill is useless drivel, written so most can’t understand (not that it matters, they never read the bill anyway).

So, let’s see the text of the bill already! Why do these clowns get to spend weeks spreading what, more than likely, will turn out to be lies and more lies, when they can’t, don’t, won’t share their proposal until after a formal submission….if then? Are they hiding something? This is the same tactic President Obama is using in his plan to seize full control and censorship of the Internet. WHAT’S IN THE BILL?!?

It’s fun for some to get all worked up over this supposed wolf bill proposal that’s been talked about from Congressman Reid Ribble, and yet none of us knows what’s in it. If we pay attention to the tidbits of information being said about the bill, it might give us some hints.

For instance, in this news article, Mr. Ribble is quoted as saying, “My bill doesn’t have anything to do with the Endangered Species Act. It just says a court should not be making a determination. And, in fact, if the population [wolves] decreases the Fish and Wildlife Service can re-list the wolf at any time.”

What’s he saying here? Looks to me like he is suggesting that the Courts will longer be able to make any rulings on wolves in those states listed in this bill….whichever ones those are. What I find troubling is that he says that if the wolf population decreases, the Feds can relist anytime they want to.

So Ribble, if this is what’s in his bill, is tossing blindly all his support and ceding all power to the decisions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Really? Those corrupt, agenda driven clowns? I see the USFWS as being really no different than the Humane Society of the United States, Midwest Environmental Advocates or any of the well-greased groups that steal their money from the taxpayers of this country. USFWS history shows their constant and consistent caving in to pressures from environmental groups.

If this bill doesn’t contain the right language, then what a waste of time. The idiot wolf lovers have pushed and demanded for so long, taking advantage of and bastardizing any semblance of law and order to get their way and more, when it comes to wolves. And now people have had enough. Screw em!

Not only would I make it so leeches can’t make their living filing lawsuits, I would permanently remove the wolf from Federal protection and disallow the USFWS any say in the future events that surround the wolf. We mustn’t forget that these criminals at the USFWS created this mess in the first place. They lied to the American people and foisted a plague upon the people and land.

It appears to me this secret proposed wolf bill does nothing but give USFWS dictator status. Way to go!

Share

Proposed Bill Would Double Federal Gas Tax

“Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) is pushing to nearly double the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax that is traditionally used to pay for federal transportation projects.

Blumenauer is reintroducing legislation he offered last year to increase the gas tax by 15 cents over the next three years, matching a proposal that was included in the 2011 Simpson-Bowles budget reform proposal.”<<<Read More>>>

Share