January 29, 2023

Animal Rights: Bunkum and Balderdash

Some people simply do not like hunting and trapping or the idea that other people do. Perhaps it’s time to get a life and get over it. There are many things in life that all of us don’t like, but does that mean we spend our time forcing our own idealism onto others? Evidently, that is true in some cases.

I have no issues with another who is opposed to hunting and trapping. I don’t try to get them to change their life over it. I only expect the same respect in return. Did I say respect? Pfffft!

What I do have an issue with is when ignorant and severely misguided excuses are given to defend one’s position on the dislike of the activity. Given the direction the American Society has taken in recent years, there is no guilt association with lying nor is there any need to present honest facts. This practice has become null and void and runs rampant throughout.

Recently two Letters to the Editor in Maine newspapers came from obvious despisers of hunting and trapping. As they go hand in hand, it is safe to say that these same people have a perverse perspective of the roles animals, both wild and domestic, play in man’s existence.

The first letter I’d like to address comes from someone who wants to stop the use of bait as a tool to harvest black bears. For the record, so would I. I don’t like baiting (I’ll save the reasons for another show). However, I can reasonably understand that without baiting the success rate for taking a bear would drop significantly, seriously hampering the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) ability to maintain the bear population at healthy levels.

But factual information is void in such conversations with animal lovers.

I’ve heard the argument before that baiting unnaturally over-feeds bears, causing a false increase in the number of offspring and that baiting habituates bears to human conditions, i.e. food and smells. The letter writer states: “One of the worst things that can be done to manage a bear population is to artificially increase the amount of available food in the environment and accustom them to human food and smells…”

Under different conditions, this may be true but I don’t think so in this case. If baiting was seriously widespread, in other words, that there actually is an artificial increase in food in the environment (not just at bait stations), throughout the entire habitat of Maine, artificially feeding bears would probably cause a problem.

According to the MDIFW’s website, bears in Maine number as high as 36,000: “Maine’s bear population remained fairly stable through 2005, but has been increasing over the last 5 years and our current estimate is between 24,000 and 36,000 bears.”

We also can find that in 2016 Maine’s bear harvest totaled 2,859. The same data tells us that 68% or 1,936 bears were taken over bait. From previous information found at various sources, it has been estimated that bear hunting success rate is around 30%. For Maine to have harvested 2,859, the number of licensed hunters probably approached 9,000. 62% of all bears harvested was done by out-of-state (guided) hunters.

How does all this translate into the number of bait piles and where they were located geographically? I dunno, but it would certainly appear that the process of baiting may have affected only a very small portion of the bear population, if at all, regardless of how one might fudge the numbers. Even if it were biologically correct to state that artificial feeding increases bear populations, baiting bears does not and cannot have any real effect on the growth of bears.

We also know that bears much prefer natural foods. During high-yield mast crop years, attracting bears to baiting stations is a difficult task to accomplish.

This is a poor argument to use against the use of bait for bears and is always simply a play on the emotions of readers.

The second letter is an excellent example of bunkum and balderdash. The diatribe begins with an attempt at likening bobcat hunting to an unfair advantage for the hunter over the animal because it doesn’t have a helmet, protective padding and shoes….or something.: “Most of us like some kind of sports by either following them, participating in them or both. Whatever ones we prefer, we expect that players or teams be more or less evenly matched in terms of skill and equipment.

We’d protest, for instance, if the tennis players we were rooting for were not allowed to use rackets, and we’d be in an uproar if the quarterbacks and linemen on our favorite team were denied helmets, protective padding and shoes.

Why? Because we require a level playing field and we believe in fairness, as well as giving those we contend against a sporting chance.”

Oh, my! This might deserve the Golden Horse Excrement Award.

Let’s put it this way. If the letter writer wants a “level playing field” wouldn’t that mean that each team would have an even chance, 50-50, of winning? This sounds more like “each participant gets a trophy.” How is it a level playing field when MDIFW has determined that a better than average chance at a bobcat hunter being successful, i.e. winning, runs at not much better than 9%?

But we soon discover the real reason for the whining and complaining: “…we believe that the consequence of defeat should not be the forfeiture of life itself.” Okay, so everyone DOES get a trophy. As I said, I don’t have an issue with people who don’t like to see animals die. I understand this but they don’t understand that the perpetuation of life insists that something must die in order for life to continue. But I digress.

The writer then goes on questioning the MDIFW’s bobcat management practices of which I have no problem. After all, I spend a great deal of time questioning their wildlife management practices. The letter writer states that MDIFW has no idea how many bobcats are in the state of Maine. This may be somewhat true but they do have a system, although it may be antiquated (I haven’t studied the plans and formulas used), where bobcat populations are estimated (like every other game species) and harvest requirements formulated from that information. See the plan here.

(Note: The writer honestly doesn’t see any difference between hunters and trappers legally taking wild animals for various reasons and MDIFW’s prohibition on hunters and trappers killing domestic animals. Where does one go from here?)

Then the writer gets back to the real meat and potatoes as to why he wants bobcat hunting to end: “Hunting bobcats is cruel and abusive.” And let’s not forget it’s “inhumane.”

What the writer rambles on about at this point is mostly pointless to discuss as it becomes obvious the writer places animals at an existence equal to or greater than that of man, giving them the attributes of man: “The word humane is derived from the world [word?] humanity, but until that connection is understood and practiced, what we have is really nothing less than state-sanctioned cruelty…”

The word “humanity” (an Evolution term) first appears in the late 14th century. All definitions and attributes are given to the existence of man…not animals. “Human” and “humane” were used interchangeably for centuries all in reference to characteristics of man…not animals.

Few know that “humane societies” were first established to save drowning people.

Any sense of humaneness pertaining to animals should only be derived from a value-weighted perception of the man toward the animal. It is certainly debatable as to whether or not an animal thinks, acts, and feels the same as a man. It is when we project our own “human” qualities onto animals, we get into some real serious issues.

I really do not understand what the author is saying when he says that “until that connection is understood.” Assuming he means a connection between human and humanity, I fail to see any connection that pertains to the existence of animals.

Not that many animal lovers would care to learn from the Scriptures, but perhaps I can give a better understanding of the role our Creator intended between man and beast (all animals, i.e. birds, fish, mammals, etc.). Genesis 1:26 tells us at the time in which He was going to “create man in our image,” “and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth and moveth on the earth.”

In verse 28, Yaweh instructs Adam to “Bring forth fruit, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over every beast that moveth upon the earth.”

After the Great Flood, Yaweh once again gave Noah and his sons the same instructions. We find them in Genesis 9: 1-5: Also the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the heaven, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.

Everything that moveth and liveth, shall be meat for you: as the green herb, have I given you all things.”

Clearly, the role of the animal toward man’s existence is clearly defined. An animal, of any kind, is not and does not have the same existence as that of man. It was intended for food, the same as plants.

Unfortunately, these verses and others are too often taken out of context to mean that man can do anything he wishes to an animal. Proverbs 12:10 tells us: “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The original Hebrew word for “regardeth” is “yada.” It carries many meanings, mostly in reference to acknowledging “the life of the beast.” It also carries the meaning “to respect.”

Yaweh gave us all the plants and animals of the Earth. After the flood, He told Noah and his sons that animals “shall be meat (food) for you.” His Scripture also tells us to be knowledgeable about the beasts and give them respect. Obviously, this didn’t mean to the point that animals are protected beyond that which might ensure their existence or to the detriment of man.

My advice to the animal lovers and those who hate hunting and trapping, tell us how upset you are because someone is killing an animal, but save the bunkum and balderdash about equal playing fields and “inhumane” treatment of animals.

As an aside: The author quotes someone who says, “Bobcats are worth more for wildlife watching and tracking opportunities than they are as pelts.” Wildlife watching? Tracking? Seriously? I have lived in Maine for going on 66 years. I have “wildlife watched” a bobcat once in my life and that was while visiting a park in Florida. It would appear that this person places little value on the life of a bobcat. Shame.



Maine Bear Hunting Still Under Attack in Maine

“An Act To Ensure Safe and Humane Bear Hunting Practices” would create a Class D crime for hunting bear with the use of dogs.

The people of Maine have spoken not once, but twice on this very issue as recently as last November, yet some organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have shown their unwillingness to respect the very backbone of rural Maine heritage and economy, our guides and sportsmen.
Source: NRA-ILA | Maine Bear Hunting Still Under Attack in Maine


On Maine’s Legislative Slate: An Act to Ban Bear Trapping and Hounding

According a tidbit found in the Portland Press Herald, a bill may be proposed in the Maine Legislature that would ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs.

…lawmakers also are gearing up for potentially contentious policy fights over environmental and outdoor issues, including a measure to ban bear trapping and bear hunting with dogs following the failure of a referendum in November that also sought to ban bear baiting.

I’ve not researched this bill and I don’t even know what the language is contained in the proposal. It would seem that the chances of a passage of a bill of this kind should be slim to none. The people of Maine spoke quiet clearly in November at the polls and let everyone know that they really preferred for wildlife management to be handled by those at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

I am hoping the bill never sees the floor of the Legislature.


Maine’s Bears: Pick Science Over Sensationalism

*Editor’s Note* – The link is to a well written opinion piece full of excellent facts about the management of black bears in Maine, including some of its history. Well, worth the read. Here’s a sample of some of what was written.

“It was not the Humane Society of the United States that stepped up to protect and elevate the public perception of bears from a pest to one that that should be conserved and protected. Indeed, this was the effort of sportsmen, the Legislature and conservationists through a new license fee that would be used to establish an ongoing revenue stream to guarantee trained, professional biologists and wardens would closely monitor and protect bear populations. Because of this commitment to sound science, Maine has two world-renowned bear biologists with a combined 54 years of experience.”

And also this:

“Enter the Humane Society of the United States, who, with their team of lawyers and millions of dollars slated for media manipulation, would hijack this success story and replace it with wildlife management based on 30-second emotional TV commercials.”<<<Read More>>>


There is Little to No Credibility Concerning the Debate of Maine’s Anti-Hunting Referendum

Not everyone is stupid and gullible. Unfortunately, radical, dirty-money-fed, environmentalists and their filthy organizations have no scruples when it comes to presenting some form of credibility in the bile fomented as letters to the editor and/or opinion pieces. Also unfortunate, is that some people seem eager to believe what is written because, well, it’s in print somewhere.

Maine, more than likely, will be facing another anti-hunting referendum next fall and as I precisely predicted, the nonsensical drivel has been oozing with stench for some time. Let’s look at one fine example of such.

The Portland Press Herald (Maine) carries an opinion piece for John Glowa, a man seemingly more in love with animals than humans and his obsession clouds his thinking. In addition it also seems to force him to state untruths (lies in case you need to know) about bears and what people say and do. In short, his entire piece is nothing short of emotional drivel, spiced up a bit with a dash or two of psychobabble.

The opening paragraph, not only sets the stage for the remainder of the regurgitation bought and paid for by the environmentalist, but pretty much defines the foundation by which the environmentalists want to force their way of life and their perverted values onto others.

The LePage administration and bear-baiting proponents would have us believe that the cessation of bear baiting would be a public safety catastrophe of epic proportions.

Rational speaking and thinking humans are quick to realize how ridiculous such a statement is. I have never once, in the many years I have been writing about wildlife management and outdoor issues nationwide, heard anybody speak of a “catastrophe of epic proportions” should bear baiting be halted. I would challenge this person to please provide the facts to back up this claim……but don’t hold your breath.

As I said, this sets the stage for the rest of the opinion piece, which means it is worthless balderdash saturated in emotion.

In addition, Mr. Glowa states that Maine needs a paradigm shift in order to convince (lie to, brainwash, indoctrinate, propagandize) people that bears will be dangerous if hunters are allowed to continue baiting them. And herein lies the rub. Wildlife management should not be based on paradigms and emotional poppycock.

Before assuming the crap sandwich that’s on special in your local newspaper, do some honest research and you’ll discover the unsubstantiated, emotional clap-trap found in this opinion piece, is worthless.

If baiting bears, as Glowa and others have falsely claimed, makes for more and bigger bears, then those states that do not allow bear baiting should not have very big bears, and fewer of them. According to Boone and Crockett (found on Peterson’s), the keepers of game animal trophy records, 11 of the top 20 all-time biggest black bears harvested came from Pennsylvania. Last time I checked, the Keystone State didn’t allow baiting, nor was there a shortage of bear to hunt. Do we need a paradigm shift there as well? And, by the way, none were from Maine.

Dang! Facts seem to be getting in the way of a good attempt at propaganda!




Millions of Pounds of Doughnuts to Bait Bear?

I’m thinking of all the maxims in existence that can be used to describe this story: It’s better to be thought of as stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, perhaps fits best.

It’s certainly not profound on my part, or anyone else’s, that when it comes to discussions on animal welfare, often rational discourse is tossed out the window. How can you take a person serious at all when they open their mouth and say really absurd things?

Maine is in the beginning stages of another battle with environmental and animal rights perverts that want to shut down essentially all bear hunting and trapping in Maine. I’ve written several articles already about this absurdity and I’m sure there will be plenty more to come. Much of my focus has been on exposing the lies, mostly geared to play on emotions, perpetuated by the mentally ill people who promote animal welfare over human welfare.

Some of the worst actors become those who sell themselves as hunters and trappers and yet run to the side of the animal perverts pushing their progressive, totalitarian agendas on the majority of the citizenry. The mere act of taking the side of anti human organizations disqualifies anyone claiming to be a hunter and/or trapper. And if they don’t agree, it’s only more proof they have their heads buried someplace where the sun doesn’t shine.

The pile of sticks at the Humane Society of the United States, the major promoter and financier of the anti rights campaign in Maine, wants to stop the use of bait in harvesting a bear. I suppose credit should be given to the animal perverts for mounting a false campaign to convince people that the bait used by bear hunters is mostly made up of doughnuts. But is it really? I don’t think so.

Those who bait bear, use an assortment of things. I have talked with guides, who probably are the ones who mostly set up bait stations for their clients, who refuse to tell me one item they use in their concoction to lure bears. I know of several bear baiters that have never used doughnuts.

But for some reason, the image that gets conjured up in the minds of non thinking people, is that the landscape in Maine is littered with boxes of Dunkin’ Donuts. I feel bad for DD that they are being dragged through this slime hole that belongs to the animal rights mental midgets.

In a recent Times Record, an editorial that got it all wrong about the truth of bear hunting, included a handful of comments left by readers. One such person is notorious around Maine as fitting the description I’ve provided above of the person who claims to be a hunter and yet jumps in bed at every opportunity with the environmentalists and animal rights extremists.

And why should we take seriously people like Cecil Gray? Here’s his comment:

Millions of pounds of doughnuts and such are dumped in the north woods every year.

I don’t now what “and such” refers to in this person’s mind but I do know what doughnuts are. Millions of pounds he says. Really? That’s a lot of doughnuts. How many doughnuts is that?

I can’t define what Mr. Gray has on his mind when he says, “millions”, i.e. plural of one million. Usually when such a broad undefined number is used it’s only to embellish a story and prompt emotional responses. When emotions enter an equation, such as whether to ban the only population control strategy used by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW), any amount of common sense suddenly vanishes and we are left shaking our collective heads.

I got wondering about “millions of pounds of doughnuts and such.” Let’s work with one million pounds and then you can multiply the information as many times as you think is enough. I didn’t go to Dunkin’ Donuts and get a dozen doughnuts to weigh but an educated guess was that a dozen doughnuts, excluding the box or container they might come in (after all I don’t think bear hunters bait with cardboard or paper), weighed approximately 2 pounds. If I’m way off on this, please weigh your own box of doughnuts and then do the simple math.

One million pounds of doughnuts then would comprise 6 million doughnuts. I wonder if collectively the state of Maine produces 6 million doughnuts in one year and still have enough left over to feed the people? According to the 2012 bear hunting harvest information found on the MDIFW website, last year a total of 3,207 black bears were taken by all methods of harvest. Of those 3,207, 2,613 were taken over bait; clearly the majority of the harvest and there’s a reason for that, but that’s another story.

That works out to having 382 pounds of doughnuts at every successful bait site. Maybe Mr. Gray sees millions more pounds of “and such” and I don’t know how much “and such” weighs but I bet it weighs more than doughnuts.

It’s all very laughable because even if this man’s statement was true, what difference does it make? Is he insinuating that this is just millions of pounds of “doughnuts and such” of illegal litter scattered willy-nilly across the forests? I wonder if this man would think it alright if hunters could bait bear with tofu?

But do you understand the last part of this guy’s comment?

Hunting is not in the equation at all. It’s time for the general populace, hunters and non hunters alike, to stop these ridiculous money making scams.



Maine Cannot Defeat Anti Hunting Referendum With Outdated Methods

bearattable - Copy

It was eleven years ago that the outdoor sportsmen of Maine battled the out-of-state environmental perverts who wanted to put an end to bear hunting, on their way to ending all hunting, trapping and fishing. It isn’t about the welfare of animals they are concerned about. It’s about the destruction of heritage, the history and everything that made America a great and free nation. Remember that.

In eleven years a lot of water has flowed under the bridge. The Humane Society of the United States, along with their “True Believers”, useful idiot local animal perverts, have continued their everyday robbing and deceiving the people of this nation in order to pay big salaries to people expert in robbing and deceiving people. In short, they have become better at it. They’ve become better liars. They have become better robbers. They’ve become better money raisers and they’ve become masters of public opinion manipulation through the media, including Cyberspace.

In eleven years the outdoor sportsmen of Maine crawled back into their comfort zones, only occasionally raising a whimper to remind Mainers that everything that is done is done out of fear of “another referendum.” Well, all that fear and laying awake nights, and ceding our hunting and trapping rights and privileges amounted to absolutely nothing…. as was predicted.

One of the difficult and contrary demographics between city-dwelling totalitarians and suburban-dwelling outdoor sportsmen is that by nature, most sportsmen are non confrontational and don’t have the time nor the desire to live in the same world as the freaks who want to rule them.

In eleven years the tools needed to promote propaganda and manipulate public opinion has also changed. I predict that in 2014, if there is a citizen’s referendum vote, who wins and who loses will be decided in Cyberspace. Oh, yes! Raising money is still the number one goal…..well, almost. It’s how that money is spent that will be the determining factor.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington, D.C.-based fraudulent, supposed “non profit”, that has no business meddling in Maine affairs, has promised to spend a minimum of $3 million dollars, if they need to. What they use this money for is what’s most important.

One thing is for certain, Maine sportsmen groups can’t fight and win this battle employing antiquated tactics.

This morning I was reading George Smith’s blog. He was attempting to recall the history of 2004, in which the Maine sportsmen defeated HSUS in a 53% to 47% decision. A lot of effort went into that victory and everyone should be commended. In addition, it is of utmost importance that we learn from history and use that knowledge to better prepare for battle. Smith plans a series of articles over the next few days sharing his remembrances of the previous referendum.

The knowledge of history should teach us what worked and what didn’t and why, but that history must be complimented with the skill and expertise in mastering the massive power of the Internet, i.e. modern technology. The technology that exists in reaching millions of people in a very short period of time is at the fingertips of anyone wishing to bring it into their employ, i.e. websites, blogs, newspapers, Facebook, Twitter, chat rooms, forums, all social sharing sites and search engines. Maybe an “App” needs to be created by the “Save Maine’s Bear Hunt” coalition.

The HSUS has $3 million to spend and millions more where that came from. They hire “trolls” and “flamers” and all they do is update Facebook, infiltrate forums and message boards, they “Tweet” and write letters to the editor….and share, share, share. It is endless and extremely difficult to counter, especially when there isn’t the money to pay to offset the influence gained.

As I said earlier, the basic character of the outdoor sportsman runs contrary to this. I know. I’ve been in this outdoor media business for a long time now and it’s a very trying task to get people who love the outdoors to take 10 minutes and sit down and find out what’s new and relevant in the world that will determine their future so they can continue loving the outdoors.

The demographics are stacked against the sportsmen in this modern technology era. The city dwellers, as a rule, don’t have much concern for any future for hunting, trapping and fishing. They live in the world of technology and there are more of them then there are hunters, fishermen and trappers. The task then becomes reaching out to that majority of people, in whom it has been discovered, as a whole, understand that hunting and trapping are an integral part of wildlife management. Sportsmen cannot lose that support. It is my belief that those “swing voters” as is so often called, need to be reached. Holding another meeting at a fish and game club might be a rallying cry and will help to raise some money but does little to convince the swing voter.

Probably, in 2004, the coalition in Maine that fought against HSUS, reached enough people with the resources available at that time. If the sportsmen think they can repeat that effort, without getting on top of technology, it will be a landslide victory for the fascists.


Why Social Influence Should Never Effect Wildlife Management

horsepoop290It’s like the movie Ground Hogs Day. It’s repeated over and over. Every fish and wildlife agency in this country now adjusts their wildlife management plans according to the pressures and influences of the mindless, incapable of thinking beyond television, public: That is those more willing to care for animals than humans.

So why shouldn’t wildlife be managed due to public influences? Perhaps this bit of wisdom will help explain. In a Letter to the Editor in the Portland Press Herald out of Maine(scroll to find), a writer attempts to paint a picture of those proponents of bear hunting and trapping as somehow not understanding their own positions.

At issue here is that anti rights, anti hunting, anti trapping, anti (you fill in the blank), out-of-state, totalitarian fascists want to control what the citizens of the State of Maine do. They are attempting, once again, to end bear hunting and trapping. One of the arguments being used by, not only hunters, trappers and citizens at large who do understand the necessity of science-based wildlife management, but also by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, is that ending any means to be able to control the population of black bears in Maine, will result in a public safety issue of too many human/bear conflicts.

Should the writer have had enough brain matter(I use the term loosely. Please see fable below), he would have been able to see the ignorance of his own statement when he said:

They say that too many conflicts with humans make these practices[bear hunting/trapping] essential to controlling the bear population.

But they also claim that that they need to use these techniques because bears are too difficult to find and shoot otherwise.

Which is it – too many bears or too few?

If you don’t know anything about hunting bears, then my recommendation would be to continue reading here the fable of the bird who refused to fly south for the winter.

A bird found a wonderful place to build a nest; right behind the wind-protected and warm chimney on top of a house. There were bird feeders around and such and so the bird decided not to fly south with the rest of the birds as winter approached.

The bird didn’t realize that when the leaves fell, the people that provided the bird feeders and warmed the chimney, closed up their house and went south as well.

The bird got cold and could find no food to eat.

One day, as the bird sat in his nest believing his life was going to end, he heard and saw a neighbor come by the house riding on a horse. He was there to check on the house for his neighbors. As the man looked around, the horse deposited a big pile of excrement right near the side of the house.

After the man and horse left, the bird crawled out of his nest and worked his way down to the eave of the roof; unable to fly he was so weak from starvation. Struggling, the bird eventually fell off the eave of the house and landed in the pile of horse excrement.

The excrement had warmth and nutrition. Soon the bird recovered his strength and flew back up to his nest. Still ignorant of the ways of the world when winter sets in, the bird was so happy he was going to live for another day, he began to sing and sing loudly. Soon a hawk heard the bird, swooped down and ate the bird.

The moral of the story is: When you are full of shit, keep your mouth shut.

And I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating The intelligence of the American public.”

*Note* – There may be some of you who will require additional help in understanding what has been written here. Seeking understanding from me is no longer free. My consultation fees begin at $100. I can take PayPal.


Preventing Hunting Through Effective Messaging

A few days ago I was reading Online an article that appeared in The Maine Wire, written by M.D. Harmon, the title of which is, “Anti Gun Liberals Prefer Emotion Over Fact.”

The construct of the article entails the messaging that took place by the gun-hating crowds after the mess in Newtown, Connecticut. The article is good but I’m a bit surprised that the author almost comes across as seeing this messaging scheme as something new, when it is a tactic that has been around for decades and has effectively ruined the lives of many people, including the destruction of personal liberties, among other things.

The article states:

As reported by Paul Bedard of The Washington Examiner, the activists created an 80-page blueprint called “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” that was intended not to advance a rational argument but to “incite a moral panic” by the use of arguments deliberately designed to create an emotional climate hostile to Second Amendment rights.

Throughout the entire article, readers can substitute the subject of guns, gun violence, Second Amendment, etc., with whatever your favorite concern is.

As an example, in Maine, members of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the Wildlife Alliance of Maine (WAM), and others, have formed the organization “Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting.” They want to ban bear hunting with bait, bear hunting with hounds and bear trapping. I assure you, nothing these people will write or verbalize will have anything to do with facts or advancing a rational argument based on facts or science. It will be an emotional climate hostile to hunting and trapping in general and bear hunting and trapping specifically.

It is important that Maine citizens understand the tactics of those undergoing the process to place a citizen’s referendum on the November 2014 ballot. The garbage they will be subjected to has no semblance of sanity, fact or rational discourse and will be laced with emotions all designed to create a climate hostile to hunting and to demonize anyone who would support it. These tactics are not new. If they appear new to you, perhaps you need to get out a bit more and get involved in the life around you.

In 2004, a similar referendum, put on by the same anti hunting totalitarians, was defeated. It appears initially that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, Maine guides, Maine trappers, Maine hound hunters, and any and all other outdoor sportsmen, are going to struggle to defeat this effort.

It is my opinion that any hope to defeat this referendum should be based on effective messaging in defense of responsible bear management. While it is important to make sure that education, which includes actual facts and the science behind responsible bear management, supported by the long history Maine has in taking care of its bears, this alone will not stir the voters. Emotions will. If those in opposition to this bear referendum are not willing to fight fire with fire, i.e. create an emotional climate hostile to the efforts to ban effective black bear management, I fear a waste of effort and resources.

How strongly convinced are MDIFW and Maine sportsmen, that the present bear management plan and tactics are working that they are willing to do what it takes to defeat this utter nonsense from fringe groups hiding behind animal welfare in order to put a stop to hunting, trapping and eventually fishing. It is coming.

(Perhaps if sportsmen can defeat this new anti hunting effort, enough Maine citizens will better understand the importance of a constitutional amendment to protect hunting, trapping and fishing. If so, then also this time it can be presented to the legislature and citizenry the right way – protecting hunter/trapper/fisherman harvest and get it done.)

I and many other warned often after the 2004 bear referendum, in regards to the non authoritative and fearful approach being taken by MDIFW, guides and sportsmen in general, that being a nice guy wasn’t going to make these environmental zealots go away and leave Maine sportsmen alone. Environmentalists are all about take and nothing about giving. This historic fact must be learned.

Any coalition of Maine sportsmen to fight this initiative, needs a speed course in the tactics used to prevent hunting through effective messaging and then turn it around. The other side began long ago. Take notice of the continuous letters to the editors in many Maine newspapers, all repeating the same emotional talking points. This is being done by design. Many of those letter writers are paid members of these totalitarian groups and they will bombard the media with emotional clap trap for the next 14 or 15 months. And that’s only one small piece of the pie.

What do the Maine sportsmen have planned?


Teddy Roosevelt: Black Bears Difficult to Hunt by Stalking

HuntingthegrizzlyTeddy Roosevelt wrote in his book, “Hunting the Grisly and Other Sketches” (free download for your Kindle) that hunting black bears offered, “much excitement, and occasionally a slight spice of danger….” In addition he stated that it was very difficult to hunt black bears by implementing only the “stalking” method of hunting. (I’ve written about the “spot and stalk” methods, here, here, here, here, here.)

The Humane Society of the United States and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine are attempting a citizen’s initiate in the fall of 2014 to ban all forms of hunting and trapping black bears in Maine with the exception of the so-called “spot and stalk” method. The ignorant masses proposing such a ban claim there is no need nor scientific substantiation to continue the current hunting and trapping methods. They fail miserably to understand responsible wildlife management while immersed in their emotional nonsense of animal and predator worship, all the while at the expense of other wildlife due to forced abandonment of proven scientific wildlife management.

Black bear populations in Maine cannot be responsibly controlled by removing all ability of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) to employ the tools necessary to manage for healthy bear numbers and provide a reasonable amount of public safety.

Current Maine bear populations are at record numbers. Maine voters need to make sure that MDIFW has the tools needed to do the job they are given to do. Please oppose any attempt by environmentalists and animal rights groups to ban proven methods as can be found in the long history of the North American Model of Wildlife Management.