October 19, 2019

Finding: Eight of Ten WORST Deer Hunting States in Northeast

Lawrence Pyne has written an article in the Burlington Free Press about the latest “finding” by Wide Open Spaces (WOS) that ranks Vermont the third worst state to deer hunt. WOS also places eight of the top ten worst hunting states as being in the Northeast. According to Pyne’s report, it appears those determining what makes for bad hunting don’t like cold weather, a lot of hunters and want to see deer by the gobs like: “sitting in a padded armchair in a warm shooting house while debating which of the many deer feeding on bait in front of you is a “shooter”.

For me personally, I like reports like this. I only wish Maine had been labeled the worst deer hunting state, highly recommending that EVERYONE stay away from Maine and don’t go hunt there. Maine has few deer. Maine has cold weather. There are still open lands in Maine where a hunter can freely go and hunt. Too many hunters flocking to the state will continue to ruin that freedom.

So, if you’re thinking of going to Maine to deer hunt….FORGEDABOUTIT! It sucks! Oh, sure, there are some who want to advertise that Maine is some mecca of great deer hunting but don’t be fooled by that ploy in misadvertising. STAY AWAY.

RealBuck

MaineDeerSuccess

2013-2014 New York Deer Harvest Numbers: 243,567 but not enough

Share

Poll: Sportsmen Support New Clean Water Protections

*Editor’s Note* – For those who understand that polls are nonsense and meaningless, designed for outcome-based results to support agendas, this information in the below news article is pure BS.

The survey, conducted by the National Wildlife Federation, polled 1,000 registered voters across the political spectrum who identify as hunters, anglers or both. More than four-fifths of them supported the revised Act.

Source: Poll: Sportsmen Support New Clean Water Protections | Maine Public Broadcasting

Share

A Senseless Poll Says 58% of Idahoans Don’t Want Wolves Protected

Just the idea that people were asked if they wanted protections for the wolf in Idaho is stupid and shows why polls are a worthless instrument, unless the purpose of the poll is strictly to create an atmosphere where people argue and fight over utter nonsense.

The news article shows it’s intent by making the statement, which I assume came from the same useless poll, that, “72% of Republicans oppose protecting wolves while 71 percent of Democrats favor protection of the animal.”

And thus we have the perpetuated and very fake paradigm of us and them, right and left, republican and democrat, liberal and conservative. This is being done all the while the poll shows nothing. The question is just too vague. I contend the majority of those polled don’t even no what “protection” for wolves means in the context of the poll survey. Therefore, the respondents, like the programmed robots they have become, answered the question as they want to believe it should be – they are either on the left or the right.

The bottom line here is that wolf introduction was a criminal act, in my opinion – criminal at many levels by many people, many governments and many organizations. The entire effort has been a disaster, with the protection of a rotten, stinking animal, sold to humans by perverts of its amazing wonders and importance to fake “ecosystems.” Any effort that destroys rights, property and a person’s ability to be fruitful and multiply, is simply wrong. If there was common sense, anymore, it would tell us that. This is, however, the insanity that is being perpetuated.

The distraction comes from media companies that promote their nonsense polls for purposes of which they probably don’t even realize. If you read the comments following this article, you will see the results of this article/poll and the many years of mind manipulations – brainwashing. It’s really quite sad. Attention is focused on the need to hate someone who blindly chooses the label of republican or democrat. All the while, we as a society, work to destroy the God-given rights of God’s children all for the purpose of placing the value of an animal above that of “the image of God.”

Ignorance and hatred causes people to defend animals because they are God’s creation. All of God’s creations have a place and a purpose in our lives (we were given dominion), for the short span of time we are here on earth. If God intended wolves, or any other animal, to have a place at the table with humans, they too would have walked upright, had thumbs, had a brain capable of knowing right from wrong, and could sit down over a cup of coffee and talk things out.

Share

Changing Demographics in Maine Bear Referendum

The Times Record newspaper is saying that the Humane Society of the United States, in a radio ad, is saying that the Times Record supports the bear referendum, Question One. The newspaper says this is due to an error of placing a news article in the editorial section of their paper. The Editorial Staff are setting the record straight that they do not support Question One.

It’s important for us to point out — despite the continued use of our paper’s name in the propaganda campaign — that we are not endorsing the ban.

But more importantly, according to polling information provided by the Times Record, opposition to Question One has grown.

A more recent poll, conducted with 441 likely voters at the end of September, showed that 53 percent of them opposed the ban, 41 percent supported it and 6 percent were undecided. The newspaper article stated the poll had a 4.4 percent margin of error.

I would like to point out that polls are a worthless instrument as far as revealing the actual intent of voters. Polls are rigged and always have been. Polls are used ONLY to influence public opinion, mostly because people think polls tell them facts and they don’t.

The bottom line is to get educated about the issue and make your decision based upon facts. Stop trusting the media, polls and campaign rhetoric.

LincolnFool

Share

Take a minute to vote NO in this online poll!

WMTW-TV Poll

_Local_News_-_WMTW_Home_-_2014-10-16_08.46.34

Results as of 8:45 am October 16, 2014

Share

Polls Show HSUS is Losing Ground in War Against Hunters

While there are some obvious differences in the two polls by comparison below, one has to wonder if more and more Mainers are finally beginning to understand that the efforts by The Humane Society of the United States to interfere with life in Maine in order to dictate their perverted way of life onto others. is being discover and lacking in want.

The two polls, shown below from the Bangor Daily News, shows polls taken one year apart. The question is in reference to whether or not Maine people want to ban bear baiting, trapping and hounding. One year ago it was a split. The most recent poll, taking place this month, shows a decided difference.

Poll2014

Poll2013

Share

Anatomy of Deception

Guest article:

The Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and a whole group of other pro wolf advocates have been showing up at public meetings since last fall, proclaiming that “More than 70% of Arizonans want more wolves.” While the figures alone were stunning, the wolf advocates were constantly harping about heeding the demands of the population. After hearing this litany for the umpteenth time, I decided to try and find out more about this survey. I wanted to know who did it, when and what the questions were. From my debate years, many eons ago, I have had one profound tenet stuck in my brain. “He who phrases the question, wins the debate!” With that thought in mind I started my research.

The research was easy to do, courtesy of the Internet, and the survey popped up fairly quickly. The Defenders of Wildlife in 2013 hired a firm call the Tulchin Research Company to conduct the poll on Mexican gray wolves in the states of New Mexico and Arizona. The Tulchin Research Company is based in San Francisco, CA and is a Democratic polling and strategic consulting firm. They did display their results on their web site, and went so far as to list the numbers of participants, their political party affiliation and most importantly, the questions they asked.

First and foremost, the questions that they asked were blatantly biased, leading the responders down a lovely path to proclaiming their love for wolves. Then came the critical numbers. How many people were quizzed? In Arizona, which has a population of over 6,500,000 people, the Tulchin survey reached 300 people. 150 were Democrats and 150 were Republican. This grand total of 300 people now represents a “Majority of Arizonans.” While the number of participants is incredibly low, those who took to the podium to proclaim that we all want wolves were either misinformed or incredibly deceptive. How can any organization base a whole state’s attitude on 300 people?

“Do you support or oppose restoring Mexican gray wolves to suitable habitat in northern Arizona and northern New Mexico?”

“In thinking about the area where wolves are reintroduced, would you support or oppose restoring wolves to suitable habitat in the Grand Canyon region and northern New Mexico?”

“Wolves play an important role in maintaining healthy deer and elk populations. Restoring wolves to forests and wilderness in northern Arizona and New Mexico will bring a healthier balance to our ecosystem.”

“Scientists say there are too few wolves in Arizona and New Mexico, they remain at risk of extinction, and there needs to be two new populations of wolves in different suitable regions to ensure recovery.”

The above questions/statements were what was posed to the unsuspecting public. For the normal lay person, when a “scientist” makes a statement, who of us feels comfortable with challenging that statement? Probably no one! When they indicate that wolves balance deer and elk herds, there is an imputing that we have a problem with deer and elk herds in Arizona. Nothing could be further from the truth, as mule deer herd numbers have been dropping for over 2 decades and that shows no sign of changing. Elk herds have been stable at best and have not been a “problem” in recent history. There are over 100,000 applicants for elk tags in Arizona every year. Only 22,000 of those applicants will draw a tag. Do we need another 1,000 predators on the landscape that will consume at least 1 elk per week per wolf?

There is no indication as to the geographic location of the individuals polled. Were they men or women? Were they rural or local? City born and raised women would be far more inclined to agree with the views, where rural born and raised men would likely have been at the other end of the spectrum. The questions do not expound further. There is always a give and take when you place a top line predator to the environment. The questions should have also included the other end of what happens when you have predators. “Would you be willing to sacrifice seeing Bambi so that you might hear a wolf?”

Sportsmen have paid dearly to bring game species back from the brink of extinction. The Pittman–Robinson act from the 1930’s has raised over 7 billion dollars of self-imposed taxes on sportsmen to ensure that we did have game species to hunt. There is no mention of the fact that wolves will eat what sportsmen have fostered and cared for during all these years. If the Tulchin group wanted a survey that was fair and unbiased they failed miserably. If they wanted a survey that simply gave them talking points and led their polled individuals to the result they wanted, then they succeeded admirably.

Over the past 9 months every meeting regarding wolves, every article printed and every e-mail of wolf support seemed to have this “70%” figure. The newspapers bought into the survey, some in the public bought into the survey but now we know how desperate these people are to attain their agenda. It is time for a survey, but one that has credentials of being unbiased and one that polls people in the thousands, not 300. Trust in the Sierra Club, the Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity? Not in this lifetime! One can always create the case that we want Mexican gray wolves in Arizona. When the public becomes aware of the costs, the lack of involvement of Mexico itself and the arrogant posting of this misleading survey by the groups mentioned, perhaps they will call an end to the madness. JK

John Koleszar – Arizona sportsman

Share

Is Washington, D.C. a State?

It was only just before I began “sub primary” school, that’s what they called kindergarten back right after Columbus landed, the United States had grown from 48 states to 50. I know I wasn’t the greatest student on any campus but I did enjoy geography and thus I learned and remembered the 50 states. I could even find them on a map. No really! The United States is just a few miles west of Rome.

Evidently while I wasn’t looking, perhaps it was Tavistock or Obama, but I’m asking myself, “When did it change?”

During Senator Obama’s campaign for presidency, he told the people he was sooooooo busy he had visited 57 states. Man, I guess he was busy. Perhaps he was so busy that he needed the help of a Navy “CORPSEman” before he became a corpse…….or a man.

Now we find out that the White House has put a list of all the “51” states and what is going to happen to them if we don’t just send Obama every nickel we got. According to the list, the District of Columbia is now a state.

So, how many states do we really have?

[yop_poll id=”5″]

Share

Sequester Scamester

And the beat goes on! Run Henny Penny! The sky is falling! Is all this hot air being exchanged about budget cuts and Armageddon a bunch of posturing political manure? Or is it real? I have read or heard that life as we know it will change. Sorry, that’s already happened. I’ve heard that the way the sequester was designed it created a 2% (roughly) across the board cut for all aspects of the federal budget. I’ve heard a 50% cut in defense, that planes will crash, people will starve, foreign countries will invade and that President Obama can simply sign a piece of paper to provide for the administration to shuffle any cuts however he wants them. So what’s the big deal? Is any of this real?

Take the survey and/or add comments below.

[yop_poll id=”4″]

Share