December 3, 2021

Arms For Me but Not for Thee



With Eyes Wide Shut – WE BELIEVE!

Most choose to believe that what their state’s fish and game department tells them is the truth. I think there’s a difference between belief and faith. A belief is a choice to accept something and like it, regardless of any measure of actual existence. Faith is having trust. I suppose therefore, many trust the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) in the decisions they make as they pertain to game management. I don’t believe nor do I have faith. That doesn’t mean I think they necessarily do a terrible job. There is a difference and few can see it. I will not, however, blindly accept statements and decisions without having the data to understand those decisions. And that’s part of what bugs me in dealing with the latest topic of cutting moose hunting permits. Where’s the data? Are we to blindly just accept MDIFW’s word about management goals? Why should we, especially when we are constantly getting contrary statements of fact?

I’ve pointed out before that one prominent newspaper in Maine printed an article stating that MDIFW had decided to reduce moose permits in portions of Northern Maine in order to grow more moose for moose watchers. That was followed up by one blogger who said that wasn’t true and went to work convincing readers that MDIFW was not growing moose for watching but were following their management plans. Now we have another outdoor writer faithfully standing by MDIFW swearing that any decisions to cut moose permits is based on science and adherence to the moose management plan. Where’s the data?

Does any of this matter? To me it does and it should to more sportsmen. Specifically there are two issues that frequently rear their ugly heads in media accounts that originate from MDIFW. The first is that the media provide “statements” from members of MDIFW. Those statement make a lot of claims and are never supported with data and from whence that data came. It’s easy to state that moose numbers in a particular Wildlife Management District (WMD) have met management goals, but exactly what does that mean? As I said, I refuse to blindly and ignorantly accept that statement. What is that statement based on and how was the data collected to make that decision? What is the moose population in that WMD? What is the bull to cow ratio? What is the carrying capacity? What is the management goal for that WMD and how was it arrived at? These are all important questions and few comments should be offered without having that information. When wildlife managers are allowed to get away with making statements without backing it up with scientific data, we are giving them free rein to do as they wish, which makes me wonder if that isn’t what was behind the statement that MDIFW was going to reduce moose permits in order to grow more moose for watching – certainly not a scientifically supported decision.

The second issue has to do with attitudes. I’ve written of this before. For a long time, wildlife managers seem to be caught dumping on sportsmen and other outdoor sportsmen when they provide anecdotal evidence. Odd isn’t it that if a wildlife biologist walks in the woods and sees 3 moose, it’s “scientific evidence,” and when a sportsman walks in the woods and sees 3 moose it’s “anecdotal evidence” and those statements are open season to be scoffed at, ridiculed and tossed aside.

The MDIFW has done this for so long that the media, their complicit mouthpieces, are doing their bidding for them. This is evidenced in the Bangor News article linked to above.

It’s terrible public relations to ridicule the sportsmen who pay these clowns salaries. In addition, without the hunting, fishing and trapping community, about the only thing newspaper outdoor writers would have to write about are piping plovers and counting bats. Exciting! And where would the wildlife managers be?

But, think about if for a moment. When sportsmen, many of whom spend more time in the field than most all MDIFW biologists or any other group of recreationists, comment about the numbers and health of the moose herd (or any other game species), essentially they are told to shut up because they don’t know what they are talking about. Then, when a microcosmic group, fortunate to have been able to create a spin-off business of moose watching due to the efforts and money of the sportsmen, speaks up and want more moose to boost their profits, MDIFW and the media are quick to bow down and grant them their wish. Why does this make any sense and why do we tolerate such behavior? On one hand we are told there’s no shortage of moose and then the actions tell us MDIFW would rather cater to the gawkers and Environmentalist. Why not tell them the same thing that is told to the moose hunters who are working harder to find the moose – get off your fat ass and out of the comfort of air-conditioned vans and find the moose the same way hunters do?

It’s easier to believe in men and have faith in what they do, than to discover the truth.




Several Nations Under Satanic Rule

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the fascism for which it stands, several nations, under Satanic rule, divided, with oppression and corruption for all.”



Who Matters?



Bill Whittle: Clock Boy Returns


Obama’s Double-Barrel Mouth

There an old saying about eating $^!* and barking at the moon. This guy can easily double down on that.



Maine Audubon Looking for Volunteers to “Monitor” Roads for Wildlife Traffic

The Maine Audubon is seeking volunteers to give of their time to “monitor” highways in parts of the state in order to provide information as to where and how often wildlife crosses the road. More can be read about this program by following this link.

I’ll actually reserve comment about this programs and its usefulness and effectiveness, however I would like to point out that in the linked-to article above it reads:

Biologists with Maine Audubon and the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife will use the information gathered by volunteers to work with town planners and the Maine Department of Transportation to reduce road risks to rare wildlife and improve conditions for drivers.

I find it troubling that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) will work with a group of untrained volunteers conducting nonscientific “studies” or “monitoring” to be used to “work with town planners and MDOT” to protect wildlife and yet when experienced outdoor sportsmen repeatedly report to MDIFW about game conditions in the forests and fields, it is not always and regularly heeded in ways that could be beneficial to the wildlife.

From my own experiences over the past several years, what I have found is that sportsmen are right on top of what’s taking place in the field. Fish and Game “experts” are about 3 to 5 years behind reality and this lag in field knowledge can be a critical time. Part of the reason they are behind the actual events on the ground is due to their refusal to listen to or work with sportsmen when it comes to game management.

I wonder then, should, let’s say, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, or some other sports afield group seek volunteers to monitor how moose and deer or other game species are doing, whether or not MDIFW would have any interest? Perhaps it is because MDIFW fears the lobby power of groups like Audubon over sportsmen groups.


Double Standard in Fining Who Kills Protected Animals

deadeaglesHere’s an interesting scenario. If a town can be fined for not preventing dogs from killing protected birds, can owners of windmills be fined for not preventing their machines from killing protected birds?

The events in Scarborough, Maine should open people’s eyes to the dictatorial fascism of the Endangered Species Act and the reality that there is no such thing as state of local governmental sovereignty. Especially when it comes to protecting animals and who is responsible for it. Protecting people? Not so much.

Piping plovers, a federally protected bird that the state of Maine and the Federal Government spend far too much money trying to protect (actually the goal here is to drive people off beaches), is part of this scenario.

According to the Scarborough Leader, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) plans to levy a $12,000 fine against the town because they can’t stop people from letting their dogs run loose. This action is being blamed for the deaths of piping plovers.

If the USFWS or any other federal agency can levy fines against towns for not doing the work of the government, or if you don’t like that statement, for NOT PREVENTING deaths of birds, then shouldn’t the owners of windmills be fined as well for the same reasons?

Fox News is reporting that windmill farms across the country are responsible for the deaths of at least 85 bald and golden eagles, most coming from one farm in California, and yet the Obama Administration refuses to levy fines against the owners of windfarms. Instead, he is proposing something similar to an “Incidental Take Permit” allowing windfarm owners to legal kill a prescribed number of eagles each year.

If that is the case then I suggest that President Obama issue the town of Scarborough, Maine an “Incidental Take Permit” for piping plovers. Or is it that Scarborough isn’t one of Obama’s cronies entitled to the many special privileges he loves to hand out?


Irony: Freeport, Maine Fights Predator (green crab) Invasion

Hat tip to reader “Bonedog”!

Will this irony also become hypocrisy?

From the Portland Press Herald, we find an article stating the woes of the Maine coastal town of Freeport, creating a plan to control a predator, the green crab, from decimating the town’s shellfish population.

There’s an army of green crabs hunkered down in the channels of the Harraseeket River and Recompence Cove, and every night they skitter up onto the mud flats to feast on whatever shellfish they can find.

They’ve munched their way through most of the wild mussels, scallops and snails along the town’s 27-mile coast, and now they’re working on wiping out one of Maine’s prime soft-shell clam populations.

To combat this small but destructive creature, the Freeport Shellfish Commission is launching the first municipal shellfish conservation program in Maine. Its goal is to reduce predators, protect and enhance existing shellfish beds and diversify the bivalve species growing in nearly 180 acres of mud flats, more than half of which are currently unproductive.

Surely any reader could substitute “green crabs” for say, coyotes, and the stories are just about identical. Will there be outrage and opposition from environmentalists and animal rights groups because the Town of Freeport feels the need to control (kill) predators to save they shellfish industry?

Just yesterday, Governor Paul LePage signed an appropriations bill, LD372, that would earmark $100,000 to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to kill predators, mainly coyotes, that are destroying the deer hunting industry. From the very beginning, and is still ongoing, coyote lovers, environmentalists and animal rights organizations, are putting up a stink in opposition to the killing of any predators. They are predator preservationists……well, at least when it comes to hunting and trapping them.

So, will there be the same outrage from the same groups of people over Freeport killing green crabs? The article says the crabs will be trapped and hauled to the landfill and composted. One would think that these environmentalists would be outraged, first at needlessly killing a living creature, a predator, and secondly wasting it by tossing it in the landfill.

Don’t get me wrong. I take no issue with Freeport killing predators to save their shellfish industry. I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here. But surely, cannot we see the hypocrisy?

Certainly there is no difference between the needs of the Town of Freeport to kill predators and the State of Maine needing to kill predators. So why then do the coyotes get the attention of the environmentalists and the green crabs don’t? (at least to this point in time). Do coyotes have more rights than green crabs?

Tom Remington