June 22, 2017

Renowned Conservationist, RMEF Promote Relevance of Hunting

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.—In an effort to promote a wider public conversation about the positive connections between hunting and wildlife conservation, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation partnered with widely-respected conservationist and wildlife researcher Shane Mahoney to release a timely and evocative short film titled Relevance.

The video, which discusses the modern relevance of hunting traditions, especially in terms of conservation benefits, is the first product generated as part of a new and ongoing collaboration between RMEF and Mahoney.

“Shane is one of the world’s leading voices for conservation,” said Steve Decker, RMEF’s vice president of Marketing. “His message about hunting’s role in society showcases the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, certainly one of the most successful systems of wildlife recovery and management the world has ever seen. Shane’s message resonates not only among sportsmen and women, but also with those who do not hunt or fish but who share in the concern for wildlife’s future.”

The film’s narrative is borrowed from Mahoney’s keynote address, delivered at RMEF’s 2017 National Convention earlier this year in Nashville.

Mahoney, a long-time RMEF member, is the president and CEO of Conservation Visions, a global wildlife initiative focused on international conservation issues.

“Hunting is sometimes incorrectly viewed as a self-indulgent and wasteful anachronism in modern society,” says Mahoney. “However, we know, from an objective perspective, that sustainable use of wildlife can be an effective tool in support of conservation and human livelihoods; it is connected to the conservation of wild lands and waters, the environment, and our own food security.”

In 2015, Mahoney launched the Wild Harvest Initiative, a multi-year research and communication effort supported by RMEF and a diverse partnership of individuals, business interests, conservation NGOs and government agencies. The project’s mission is to provide a first-ever evaluation of the biomass and economic value of wild food harvested by recreational hunters and anglers in Canada and the United States and to assess the wider community of consumers who share in this harvest. By conjoining these insights with existing economic assessments of recreational hunting and angling, and by evaluating the costs and mechanisms that might be considered necessary to replace this wild food harvest, the Wild Harvest Initiative will help focus a wider question facing conservation policy institutions in both countries; namely, if hunting and angling were to cease tomorrow, what would be the consequences?

RMEF and Mahoney will work together on future projects as part of RMEF’s ongoing#HuntingIsConservation campaign, which has reached more than 30 million people since its launch in January 2016.

Share

Maine House Fearful of Lawsuits Passes Bill to Allow “Religious” People to Forego Wearing Blaze Orange

The Maine House has passed, 120-27, LD 426 that provides anyone who cannot wear bright colored clothing while firearms hunting for deer, to discard it and instead wear some kind of red clothing – some kind because what that red is has not been determined.

Many other things in the bill, whose sponsor was quoted as saying, “I feel that failure to do so will almost certainly lead to a legal confrontation between the state of Maine and this group of Amish people”…, were not spelled out and leaves wide open many issues, some of which could be potentially serious.

If the Senate passes and the Governor signs this bill, it appears anyone can hunt deer with firearms and forego wearing blaze orange and replace it with red. If questioned simply tell the warden it’s for religious reasons. Who is going to prove one way or another. Does this bill clearly point out that you have to be an active member of a recognized “religious” order or sect to qualify? And now wouldn’t that open up a can of worms!

And what about liability. Yes, Maine law states that a hunter is responsible to know his target before shooting. But what if there is an accident anyway. Is the shooter exempt from liability because, unlike all other hunters, a “religious” hunter isn’t wearing the required hunter orange?

So, what does this say about the years of process and development of Maine hunter safety rules. Do we toss those out the window because of a “religious” belief? If blaze orange is a public safety issue then it is a public safety issue…period.

If Maine is passing this bill, partly due to the fear of lawsuits brought on by the Amish, then is it that they have no fear of a lawsuit brought on by everyone else who feels reverse discrimination?

But what I find of interest, and I suppose a point that nobody wants to speak of (out of fear of a lawsuit for bigotry and/or religious persecution), is that the Amish state that their religion forbids them to wear bright-colored clothing because it draws attention unto them. Really? So is it the bright clothing that is the issue or the fact that attention is being brought on them somehow?

If it’s about the attention, then one could argue that they certainly draw more attention on themselves simply by living a lifestyle that causes people to stop and stare, and sometimes worse than that. And if that isn’t enough, I know when I am out in the woods hunting, and wearing blaze orange because it is REQUIRED by law (and now I will be treated differently) there’s nobody around in the woods that would give a damn what I’m wearing.

In short, none of this makes much sense at all. It just all sounds like a bunch of crap, rooted in the fear of some sort of lawsuit, to go overboard with “religious” tolerance. Which brings me to another point. If it’s the attention they are trying to avoid, what kind of attention have they already brought on themselves by pushing this law and what more attention, probably national, would they bring on themselves if they filed a lawsuit?

I call BS!

Personally I don’t care. I really don’t. Under certain circumstances I would like to be able to hunt without blaze orange. Now, I guess I can because I just found “religion.”

 

Share

Curious Deer Sniffs Hunter’s Pants

Share

SAM’s Testimony on Right To Hunt Amendment, Makes Claims Not Entirely True

Recently I wrote about a proposed constitutional amendment in Maine that is being presented as an amendment to protect the “right” to hunt, trap and fish – LD 11. I also wrote that this proposal was one that I could support and I was wrong to have made the statement using the words that I did because I failed to succinctly express the full truth in my statement. Please let me explain.

Yesterday, I was reading David Trahan’s (Executive Director of the Sportman’s Alliance of Maine) testimony before the Legislative Committee in support of the proposed amendment.

To many, his words ring true, much because most of us have been taught certain things about our federal and state constitutions and the rights we have been granted under those constitution. Men don’t grant rights to anyone. They simply claim ownership of them and hand them back to us in some kind of limited form or fully deny us of such rights.

Trahan states that when this nation was founded, wildlife was “placed in the public trust” and as such we had the right to take it for sustenance. Therefore, Americans have always possessed the right to hunt, fish and trap. I will have to save for another day any debate on this so-called public trust and our inherent right to hunt, fish and trap. I will proceed from the perspective of most that they do have either a right or a privilege.

As Mr. Trahan also pointed out, man decided that in order to sustain game and other wildlife, they must construct laws to limit that activity. What happened to our inherent “right” to hunt, trap and fish when the limitations by law became enforced? Is anything really a “right” when it is controlled by man? We evidently believe so. When men, because they couldn’t maintain viable game populations through their own disciplines, called upon man-governments to do it for them, it began the process of destroying any semblance of a right to hunt. I ask once again, what happened to a so-called “right” to hunt wildlife “placed in the public trust” when at least some of that right was ceded over to government and restricted?

This is not that much different than the argument of sovereignty, in which most people do not understand sovereignty of an individual or a government agency. How are you a sovereign individual? Oh, you might say, “Nobody tells me what to do! I’m my own man!” But you are not. You might be a legend in your own mind, but you are not a sovereign individual. Once a man agrees to become part of a community, whether it is a small as a neighborhood or as large as a nation, they have agreed to relinquish that sovereignty and place it under the control of the government. Your act of relinquishment places decisions about your life into the hands of the controlling government agencies.

In Maine, at some point in time, the full right to hunt, trap and fish, was ceded to the State Government to control and make the decisions for us as to what, when and how we might harvest game. Trahan points this out in his testimony. In reality, the sportsmen have very little control over their perceived right to hunt. What has evolved since the creation of game and wildlife laws, is that the government agency formulated to oversee hunting, trapping and fishing, call the shots. Yup, proposals for new laws can be presented. Sometimes they get through a committee and most times not. You are heard before a committee but if you can’t get by the committee then what has become of your “right” to hunt, trap and fish. If you do get through committee you are at the mercy of the Legislature. Where then is your protected right?

Many believe that an amendment to the Constitution will guarantee, protect or create a “right” to hunt, trap and fish. They are wrong. I have written many times on this subject and stated that unless an amendment mandated or forced the government to do something, it is nothing more than words on a piece of paper.

The proposed LD 11 states, in reference to the right of the people of Maine to hunt, fish and trap, that this right: “may not be infringed.” (emboldening added) This is not a mandate. It does not force the Legislature, the Governor, Law Enforcement, or anybody else to stop any infringement of a person’s right to hunt, trap and fish. Go ask a lawyer – or at least an intelligent and honest one (yeah I know). Or go research it yourself. “May” is not a mandate – only a suggestion.

Further, the amendment says that this non infringement of the right to hunt, trap and fish is subject to “reasonable” laws enacted by the Legislature and “reasonable” rules adopted by the department in charge of management of game, fish and other wildlife. Is a “reasonable” law or rule an infringement? We’ve already established that the protection against infringement is non binding because the lawyers chose “may” instead of “must.”

So, who decides what “reasonable” means? I hope you are beginning to understand.

The amendment establishes that the department in reference is supposed to “promote wildlife conservation and management” and “maintain natural resources in trust for public use” (emboldening added) and this evidently will “preserve the future of hunting and fishing.” Nothing here is a mandate that forces anybody to do anything. What is wildlife conservation? As it is in operation today, wildlife conservation becomes a matter of which social entity has the most dollars and the loudest mouth to force their idealistic perceptions and conceptions of wildlife conservation.

The Department, according to this amendment will “maintain” natural resources. Maintain them how and to what levels of population that will guarantee, protect or create the “right” to hunt, trap and fish? This, of course, is left up to the Department, which is what takes places now. There is no mandate. There is no protection of any right.

The amendment further states that “public hunting and fishing are the preferred means…” (emboldening added) Where is the mandate here that will guarantee, protect or create a “right” to hunt, trap and fish? The Department might “prefer” to use hunting and fishing but what if they decide to import wolves to control populations of deer and moose? Where is the mandate? Where is the protection of any “right” to hunt, trap and fish? And would such a decision be “reasonable?”

The truth is, that while this is better language than previously proposed in other amendments, voters in Maine should not be misled to believe that this amendment, as written, will guarantee, protect or create for Maine citizens, the “right” to hunt, trap and fish.

And on the reverse of this, as I have already read in a few spreads of clap trap nonsense, such an amendment, as written will not destroy the process to petition the state. This should be obvious once you understand this proposal has nothing in it that is a mandate, forcing anybody to do anything.

When I said this amendment was something I could support, that statement was not accurate and I apologize for misleading people, if I did. First, I could not “support” such and amendment in the literal sense because I am not a legal resident of Maine and therefore could not vote for it if I wanted.

My thinking at the time was that while there still were no mandates in the proposal, perhaps the language was such that it might deter the onslaught of lawsuits and referendums that have been piled onto the Pine Tree State. It may, in fact, increase them. It is difficult to assess.

I will work harder to choose my words and the statements I make more carefully.

Share

Political Censorship Gives MDIFW Pause to Come Up With Definition of “Red”

This country is ruled by censorship and fear! It’s called political correctness and that involves something called “religion.” And because one tiny sub-sector, of a sub-sector, of a sub-sector of a group who prefer to call themselves “religious” and their “religion” prohibits them from wearing “flashy” clothes, they want the State of Maine to change the law that requires hunter orange mandates, for public safety reasons, in minimum amounts for hunting in the Maine woods, to satisfy their “religious” beliefs.

According to George Smith’s article, there appears to have been but two issues (or that’s all Mr. Smith chose to report) involved with the recommendation for or against this bill – safety and the definition of “red.”

I expressed my opinions about this subject last week.

It should be a no-brainer about safety. If outdoorsmen and safety experts, as has been done for over a decade now, subscribe to the promoted talking points of how much safer hunter orange (a minimum standard luminescent orange color highly visible even in questionable amounts of daylight) is over any other clothing, then the issue of its requirement should not become one of religion…should it? One can understand the government forcing people to murder unborn babies as a violation of a “religious” or moral belief, but to participate at the risk of endangering, not only the Amish, but the risk of causing confusion where years of training and adapting to hunter orange and “identifying a target” seems a bit silly to me. And where does the liability on the issue fall? One would rationally conclude that the wearing of “flashy” clothes might be something not permitted, for many of the same reasons Pagan worship practices many outrageous things include “flashy” statues, idols, clothing, etc., when an Amish person goes out in public, not into the woods to hunt.

One might even make argument that if one believes God gave man the dominion over animals and therefore hunting is allowed by a religious order, then perhaps there is something wrong with the religious order banning “flashy” clothing and not the law that has been crafted for public safety.

If my “religion” was so important to me that I can’t bring myself to wear hunter orange so that I can participate in hunting deer in Maine, I think I would give up hunting during the time I had to wear “flashy” clothing. Either it is that important or it’s not.

So now, to further this idiotic nonsense of political correctness and perpetuate the fear of some sort of reprisal from the “religions,” state law makers are now going to try to pass the buck (no pun intended) and come up with a definition of “red” in hopes they can use that as an escape goat.

So tell me! How much more absurd can our society become attempting to turn their backs on the one and only Creator of all things, in order to appease the Satanic worship and idiosyncrasies of a group choosing to call themselves “religious” in order to reap the benefits of political correctness’es preferred treatments and special privileges?

Perhaps the State of Maine should consider the below photograph as a great example of what they can require of Amish hunters, while at the same time appeasing the “rights” of many other groups and not running the risk of offending them.

*Update* – I forgot to mention when I wrote this an hour ago, that, according to Smith’s article, when asked about how wardens would enforce the Amish exception, he wrote: “if a warden did issue a summons for not wearing orange, the hunter would have to prove in court that his religion prohibited him from doing so.”

Information available here is very lacking. But suppose such an Amish Exception becomes law. Do the Amish then have a preferred privilege over someone who might belong to another “religious” sect that also prohibits “flashy” clothing? Will the Amish, if caught wearing “red” instead of what’s required by law, have to also go to court, at their expense, to prove their innocence? The other question of importance is when does it become necessary that every citizen is presumed guilty until they can go to court and prove their innocence – which is exactly what such a statement establishes?

Share

One, Two, Three, Four…What Comes Next?

CRICKETS

Share

Sorry, Wildlife Viewing Is Not The Same As Hunting

I guess some think that because some rogue poll might indicate that “wildlife viewing” is a growing trend, that it will replace hunting because we live in a progressive, socialistic-totalitarian society filled with entitlement and selfish greed. Even certain reporters are clueless, as we find in this article: “There’s a new generation of outdoorsmen stalking wild game, but they’re not armed with bows or guns. Instead, they wield tripods and cameras. This movement represents a growing trend toward what Edward Putnam, the author of “Is Wildlife Viewing The New Hunting?,” calls “non-consumptive outdoor recreation.”<<<Read More>>>

To describe wildlife viewers as “stalking wild game” with cameras is a joke. There is no such thing that exists in an honest assessment of reality. Yes, there are a tiny handful of people who actually work very hard to capture high quality pictures. However, incorrectly presented in this article, those who call themselves “wildlife viewers” are not stalkers of anything, except perhaps the closest Starbucks.

They ride around in cars, many not actually purposefully seeking to “view” wildlife, hoping to catch a glimpse of some animal and if the window of the car isn’t too dirty, and won’t mess up the “doo” they might snap a shot with their stupid smart phone. Good for them.

Hunters, on the other hand, at least have to get out of their transportation devices, while some spend hours and miles of real “stalking” searching for food, that might happen to be a “trophy.” This event is a tradition that can’t even compare with cellphone photography. Only someone who has never done it would somehow think one would be the exchange of another.

But there is a real difference between the two – not mentioned in the article, other than to state that the interest in hunting holds steady while “wildlife viewing” appears to be of growing interest. They fail to explain the biggest reason hunting interest is not growing. I will.

Hunters are tolerant and generous people, willing to share the woods with anyone bent on taking photographs of wildlife. They don’t even mind that people drive around in climate controlled vehicles “viewing wildlife,” even though it is the millions of dollars hunters pay so that those “wildlife viewers” can occasionally catch a glimpse or snap a picture.

On the other hand, many of the “nonconsumptive” outdoor recreationists go out of their way, through misguidance and selfish entitlement, to stop hunting. This present society emboldens progressives to destroy heritage while at the same time forcing their lifestyle onto others. Are all “nonconsumptive outdoor recreationists” progressive destroyers forcing their lifestyle? Of course not but when we read articles, such as this one, where the term “nonconsumptive” is propped up as the antithesis of hunting, you don’t have to be a skilled code reader to understand what is being said.

There is no comparison between the two interests regardless of what ignorant writers have to say about it. However, I have no issue with photographers and viewers enjoying many of the same things that I do and I will never lift one finger to stop them from doing it. On the other hand, I wish I could say the same for them.

Share

“Don’t Ask Me I Don’t Give a Damn…”

Share

Can’t We All Just Get Along…And Let the Wolves Kill Us?

As a society we fail miserably when it comes to making much sense out of anything anymore.

I was sent this video with the senders commentary on what he thought this 50-second video could be saying. I thought I would take a stab at it.

In the minds of some people – that would be those who, if they viewed this video, would be extremely repulsed by it because…. well, because they will – what is shown in this video is an act against a living thing that is believed to be sacred, or at least at or above the level of that of man. For others, it is an unnecessary act. They aren’t there. They don’t know. They need to shut up.

The wolf, characterized by most humans for centuries, represented deceit, stealth, cunning, killing, death, disease, famine, violence, sadness, misery and just about nothing good. In the American society of today, the wolf, and other dangerous predators (they don’t perceive rats as dangerous evidently) are, like Pagan worship, cast in a false diadem, demanding their protection, striving to fraudulently position the wolf as some kind of Pagan god that walks on water, changes the flow of water and miraculously is the only power that exists that can “balance” our mythical “ecosystems” while wiping out disease and hunger that these same perverse thinkers believe exist as they do in human existence. It is viewed as a crime equal to that of taking the life of a man. It is irrational thought.

The video is representative of the realities of life…outside the cement walls and asphalt roadways. Man was given a brain capable of reasoning beyond that of animals. A man, who given access to the resources Yehwah promised, does what was intended. Man’s effort to better themselves, devised machinery, tools and equipment in order to sustain that one precious gift given to all of us…life. Life persists with food, water, shelter and clothing (notice I didn’t add cellphones and Facebook to the list). That is what you see. That is what is real. That is the way it was intended.

Will anybody ask why the one man with a gun stops shooting?

Share

Gun Free Zone?

Share