November 28, 2022

Maine Legislature Axes Many Deer Hunting Bills

George Smith’s website lists all the deer hunting proposed pieces of legislation that got shot down. Thanks to the Legislature for addressing this list of useless bills in the fashion they did. It appears that many think “Any-Deer” permits are something to be used for special interest groups only.

In the meantime, those of us who care, are still waiting for the Department of Inland Fisheries and wildlife to release the harvest data for the 2016 deer hunt. So far, this is the third slowest in getting the report out.


Washington Proposing to Change How Wolves are Managed

“The bill sponsored by Sen. Brian Dansel, R-Republic, would order the state Department of Fish & Wildlife to change its 2011 wolf management plan to base full recovery on packs instead of breeding pairs; to examine wolves killing livestock and wildlife, such as deer and elk; and to nail down when a wolf can be legally killed.

The department also would have to determine when ranchers and farmers can be compensated for the loss of livestock to wolves. The deadline to overhaul the wolf management plan is June 30, 2017.”<<<Read More>>>


Don’t Be So Quick to Dispel Slingshot Hunting

I read and giggled what George Smith had written on his website about discussions on a proposed bill that would provide for hunting small game with a slingshot. LD 291 seemed to have been quickly dismissed but with much ignorance on display.

Smith writes:

Animal rights activists turned out in force to testify against the bill as did DIF&W.

Daryl DeJoy testified that his ten years of attending legislative hearings, “I have yet to testify before a bill as poorly thought out as I believe LD 291 to be… As one commentator on our Facebook page asked, ‘What’s next, baiting chipmunks?”

Judy Camuso, on behalf of DIF&W, testified against the bill. Her testimony was thorough and convincing, raising many problems with hunting with slingshots, including technical and enforcement problems.

It always amazes me that everything to do with hunting and weapons is always approached from the position that those using the weapons are out of control psychopaths whose intention is to willy-nilly kill everything in sight – death and destruction. Oh my God!

In listening to the testimony in Augusta, one person questioned about if anyone knew or had any information about the speed and killing force of a slingshot. Essentially nobody offered any information, assuming then that decisions might be made from the position of willful ignorance.

In the DeJoy testimony, mentioned above by Smith, he rails on about how making a slingshot a viable weapon for small game hunting would do nothing but create injured wildlife, injured pets and a myriad of other problems intended to present the idea as nothing but uncontrolled, irresponsible killing….like bow hunting, rifle hunting, muzzleloader hunting, etc. are? NONSENSE!

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife opposes such a bill, evidently for “technical and enforcement problems”. I understand but I don’t understand. I’m thinking this is much like the story of the neighbor who went next door to borrow an ax. The man said he couldn’t borrow his ax because it was Tuesday. When asked what Tuesday had to do with it, the neighbor answered, “Nothing. But if I don’t want you to borrow my ax, one excuse is as good as another.”

How many people do you know of that have slingshots? What kind of a problem exists at present with “uncontrolled” uses of slingshots? “Injured wildlife”? “Injured pets”? Why should anyone think providing a small game season for slingshot hunting as something that is going to cause all kinds of “unintended consequences” as was stated by the Senator presenting the bill?

It must be, using the same rationale, that there are “unintended consequences” along with injured wildlife, injured pets and lack of supervision when it comes to archery hunting. No, it’s because of the ignorance and emotional utter nonsense that always seems to rear it’s head in such issues.

Obviously, from what I have read and heard during testimony, ignorance of slingshots is at an all time high and evidently the best way to deal with this issue is to scoff at it and get rid of the proposal before anybody has to find out anything and/or education themselves about the issue. But I guess nobody has time. Gotta go check on those radio collars.

In parts of the United States, slingshot use and hunting, as well as competition events, are common. The skill set is quite remarkable. Instead of shaking one’s head and imagining two boys using a slingshot to kill the neighbor’s dog or cat, why not first educate yourself. Do people practice archery and target practice with their guns and rifles on a neighbor’s cat or dog? Not as a rule but somehow if Maine should implement a season of small game hunting with slingshots, all of these things will happen. Slingshots cause uncontrolled killing.

Slingshots, of the right size and manufacture, are viable weapons. Just like Maine has decided that .22 long rifle caliber rifles cannot be used for deer hunting, so too would limitations and regulations, just like all other disciplines, be placed on slingshots.

One person argued it would be uncontrollable because the the weapon is silent. I’m sure glad arrows go bang when they are shot out of a bow. I’m glad traps can be heard slamming shut. It’s a good thing fish scream when hooked by a fisherman. And those earth tremors we feel, are to let us know somebody threw their trash and personal waste on the ground. How ridiculous can we become?

I know little about the exact wording or the intent of the person who proposed the bill (they didn’t show up for testimony evidently) but I would certainly hope that before the Maine Fish and Wildlife Committee would toss out this idea, they think it through thoroughly. There are benefits to having such a season.

And how can any government agency not be chomping at the bit to provide another means of taking tax money to license and regulate such an activity. Hasn’t stop them in the past.



Politicians Make Plans to Circumvent Environmental Lawsuits and Activist Judges

Once again we are seeing and hearing of efforts to introduce legislation to manage and control wolves. It appears four members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Wyoming are proposing a bill that would: “…allow the Great Lakes states to continue the effective work they are doing in managing wolf populations without tying the hands of the Fish and Wildlife Service or undermining the Endangered Species Act.”

There is no text of this proposed bill and people should hold their applause until they see it. This is nothing more than a direct result of environmentalist’s demand for predator protection going too far. When one studies the entire history of what led up to the writing of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), they discover that the intent was to protect and save species that were recklessly being threatened. All attempts at protecting those species intended to be grounded in reasonable administration, with little or no effect on local economies, private property, human safety or, in general, that no plant or animal would take precedence over the welfare of human beings. This nonsense of ESA abuse and corruption has driven more and more people to their edges and now we are witnessing the push back.

Idaho and Montana got wolves removed from federal protection as well as a ban on any further litigation to stop the delisting. This was achieved by attaching a rider to an omnibus budget bill. Doubts are it would have stood alone as a separate bill. Wyoming, said to have been “thrown under the bus” during the Idaho and Montana event, eventually achieved delisting but subsequent activist court rulings have placed the wolf back on the ESA list.

The Western Great Lakes wolf population was removed from ESA protection but another activist judge in Washington, D.C. placed wolves back under ESA protection because she believed in the all or nothing principle that no species listed as threatened or endangered should be removed from protection anywhere until that species is fully recovered throughout its entire historic range.

And so, the nonsense continues!

What is puzzling is that in the article linked to above, Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin seems concerned that his proposal wouldn’t “undermining the Endangered Species Act.” Well, why not. We already have one act of Congress to get around the draconian laws of the Endangered Species Act and endless lawsuits that have, because of abuse and corruption, gotten out of control, and another end around planned. This should speak volumes to any sane person that there is something seriously wrong with any law that when administered, fosters the results of rights intrusion and usurpation, public health and safety and the ability of local governments to take care of their own business without subversive actions by governmental and non governmental agencies.

So, one has to ask why the need to tip-toe around the ESA? If it is prohibiting sensible wildlife management while destroying the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of individuals, one can only hope that the end around bill proposal is more of a stop gap effort to be followed by permanent and effective amendments to or the complete overturning of the ESA.

And so, the nonsense continues!