March 4, 2015

Getting Maine’s Lynx Population Delisted Will be a “Daunting Task”

LynxOver the weekend, I was reading an article in the newspaper of The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, written by former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) biologist Gerry Lavigne about how Maine needs to get the Canada lynx “unlisted” from federal protection of the Endangered Species Act. Lavigne’s claim is that it will not be as difficult a task to “unlist” vs. “delist”, claiming that the unlisting would come as the result of showing that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) made a mistake when they originally listed the Canada lynx as a threatened species. Lavigne writes: “It is time to unlist the lynx in Maine, and return management solely to DIFW. This is different from delisting, where the USFWS and anti-trapping and hunting zealots would retain their stranglehold on lynx management. We need to demonstrate that the USFWS erred in declaring that Maine lynx were threatened with extinction in the first place.”

Lavigne further explains that all that is needed is to present the already existing documentation that shows that the USFWS did not follow the rule of law to get the lynx protected in the first place. He then presents to readers what appears to be, from my perspective, an accurate accounting of what the USFWS did and recorded at the time. In short, it was a great piece of work by Lavigne and this is information that should be saved and referred to often.

However, there exists one giant roadblock of which, in my opinion, destroys any hope that “unlisting” the lynx would “not be as daunting a task as it sounds” – The Courts!

Lavigne accurately points out that the Courts forced the USFWS to list the Canada lynx in Maine as “Endangered”. In reality, it wasn’t that simple. Most people are sick and tired of beating the dead horse but in short, our corrupt government, influenced by corrupt environmental and anti hunting groups, and their deep pockets, attempted and was successful at convincing enough people that the head of the USFWS at the time was doing things illegally for political gain. The end result was The Courts forcing the USFWS to place the Canada lynx on the Endangered Species Act list of threatened and endangered species.

As Lavigne is pointing out, the USFWS did what The Courts forced them to do even if it meant fudging the data to come up with something. And so they did.

It may sound like “not as daunting a task” to go back to court and show the court the error of their ways. But aren’t we then calling upon the same corrupted and rigged system that protected the lynx illegally in the first place?

I may not fall in line with the majority of other readers and outdoor sportsmen when it comes to having faith in the court system of this country but history is history. We are witness to senseless court rulings and reversals that make absolutely no sense. Therefore, those decisions can only be considered as corrupt or carried out by incompetent persons; or a combination.

The Courts forced the USFWS to list the lynx. Are we now to believe that The Courts will say, “Ooops?” I don’t think so. Somebody might be successful enough to hand pick one judge that would rule sensibly, but The Courts are stacked because we operate within a rigged system. The roadblock will appear and in the meantime years go past while the issue is tied up in The Courts.

I have basically no faith in the Executive, the Legislative or the Judicial branches of THEIR de facto government. They operate, each of them, as self-serving, entities with no ties of responsibility to “we the people” and serve only “We the People”.

The trick is to find a connected insider who is willing to play along with the corruption and get, anyway possible, a bill through Congress, that overrides The Courts and/or The Endangered Species Act. If you want to play at their level then you must use their own rules of engagement.

Then and only then, will Maine get lynx delisted or unlisted….until the corrupt bastards figure out how to trump that piece of legislation with one of their own.

And so it goes.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestLinkedInEmailShare

Eastern Maine Sportsman Show

EasternMaineSportsShow

Watch Out For Moose and Deer

ST. JOHN VALLEY, Maine – Wildlife including deer and moose are beginning to make an appearance on northern snowmobile trails, according to a Feb. 25 snowmobile trail report issued by Caribou Parks and Recreation Department.

Read more: St. John Valley Times – Deer and moose appearing on snowmobile trails

HSUS Bent on Maine Outfitter Destruction?

RossLakeCamps

HSUS Declares Maine Bear Hunting a Target in 2016

Press Release from the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance:

Just months after a resounding defeat by Maine voters, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has announced plans to bring yet another ballot issue on bear hunting back to Maine.

On Tuesday, Feb. 24, lawyers for HSUS and the state of Maine were in court to debate the lawsuit brought by HSUS against the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. That suit sought to stop the state’s wildlife experts from explaining to voters the true dangers of HSUS’s bear hunting ban. Despite an overwhelming decision by Maine Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler that sided with the state’s right to provide comments, HSUS continues to pursue a legal challenge.

As part of the discussions about the pending litigation, an attorney for HSUS, Rachel Wertheimer, advised the court that they will again put the question on the 2016 ballot, and will be filing the initial paperwork soon.

“I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that these guys will stop at nothing to pursue their radical, anti-hunting agenda,” said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “They spent more than $2.5 million dollars trying to buy an election. When it was clear they were about to lose, they sued the state to prevent the true experts from explaining the dangers of the issue to voters. And now they are making it crystal clear that they do not respect the will of the voters – who have twice sent HSUS and their allies packing.”

In November, voters rejected the bear hunting ban (Question 1) by a 53.6 to 46.3 percent margin, just as they did in 2004 – the last time HSUS brought the issue to Maine.

“How many times are we going to have to debate this? They’ve lost before the legislature, they’ve lost at the ballot box, and they’ve lost in the courts,” Pinizzotto continued. “This is nothing more than a direct look straight into the heart of the anti-hunting movement, a movement that will obviously stop at nothing to accomplish their agenda.”

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.

Fear the SLINGSHOT!

Maine Deer Management: Excuse Du Jour?

I was reading George Smith’s blog this morning about all the deer plans Maine has come up with over the years all aimed at rebuilding a deer herd. Smith points out, and I believe he is factual, that the number one excuse found in the myriad of deer plans as to why deer numbers don’t grow is because of diminishing habitat for the animal. Really?

I won’t deny that losing habitat isn’t a factor – and it might even be a significant factor – to maintaining and growing a deer herd. But I don’t think I’m alone when I say that I am really quite sick and tired of listening to that crap sandwich.

It’s a crap sandwich because of all the things that could be done to increase the deer herd, it’s the least likely something anybody can do about it. It’s not too far from thinking we can control the weather.

First of all, the avoidance continues, with never an answer, as to why if wintering deer habitat is so lacking why are there empty deer yards across the state? But let’s forget that for now – seeing that nobody wants to talk about it.

So Maine has all of these deer plans proposed and proposed and proposed and then along comes another to suggest another working group to come up with a plan, a plan, a plan and guess what? Nothing changes…well, at least nothing any of these people want to talk about.

Let me ask one question. What are Maine deer managers doing to build the deer herd back up? Simple question. Let’s form a list:

1. Form a working group
2. Devise a plan
3. Cry because it’s all about habitat, habitat, habitat, habitat, habitat…excuse me, I just vomited on my computer screen.
4. Ignore the plan
5. Talk about wasting money to collar 40 deer to study whether or not coyotes are killing deer.
6. Form a working group
7. Devise a plan
8. Self committal to an insane asylum.

INSANITY!

Here’s something to think about. The excuse du jour – no habitat – claims that deer can’t be grown because there just isn’t enough habitat so deer can survive the winters. So, Maine has done nothing about that and that’s not surprising. So, they wash their hands of any responsibility and decide to go study moose. Oh, but let’s not forget that token deer collaring program that might happen. That will surely put meat in my freezer.

So, if habitat is the big deal here, then there must be enough wintering habitat to allow for the increase in deer densities following 2 or 3 relatively mild winters. That did happen. I know it did. That’s encouraging so, hold that thought for a minute.

If Maine could maintain the current level of deer wintering areas and build deer up to carrying capacity, would not hunters and others be happy? Or at least happier than they are now? So, let’s work at trying to keep the habitat that exists, without becoming statist, totalitarians, and actually do those things within our easy power to cause deer numbers to go up.

1. Control coyotes/wolves (Sorry that means killing them and it has to be a program, ongoing and forget all the lame excuses as to why it doesn’t work. It does and there’s proof. We don’t need a study group to find out.)
2. Reduce black bear populations. When discussions surround coyote killing to mitigate depredation, we hear how bears kill more deer than coyotes. Fine, go kill some bears. How about a spring season? Oh, wait. Because we live in fear for our lives over fascist animal rights groups we dare not stir the pot and have a spring bear hunt. IT MIGHT OFFEND SOMEBODY. It might offend the farmer losing his livestock too but that doesn’t count? It offends me that I don’t see deer at all while hunting deer in the woods in the Fall. And while we bury our heads in the sand, the deer population works toward extirpation in Maine, while deer to the north of the state, in Canada, are doing okay.
3. Better control and monitor where bobcats and all other predators are having an effect. We don’t have to kill all the bobcat, just reduce numbers in areas where deer need help.
4. Here’s another suggestion. Instead of caving in to the political power brokers to allow them to build trails through the middle of deer wintering yards, maybe that would help save habitat. Oh, what’s that you say? That doesn’t count? That doesn’t matter? That’s too small an amount to have any impact? Okay. I get it. It’s about power and control.

If habitat is so big that nothing else matters, as it sure seems that’s the case, then how do you explain the fact that in Eastern Maine were coyote/wolf control is ongoing, their deer numbers are rebounding nicely? Why? Coincidence? I don’t think so. They are doing something about it. I think they at least understand that while habitat isn’t fully abundant, and let’s face it, it never will be again, they can and are doing somethings that will help.

Now, I know these suggestions require work and it might not be as much fun as tracking radio collars and flying in helicopters counting animals, but one more claim that Maine can’t do anything about the deer herd because of habitat and I will have to vomit on my computer screen again.

Enough already! Rome burns while another working group and deer plan is devised.

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>>>

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.”

You Don’t Say? I Believe! I Believe!

Seen on the streets of Southern Maine:

SAMTrust